• Recognize the different ones in use •
[1½ MIN READ]
Conversations and collaboration are prone to going haywire when participants are naïve to or ignorant of the ways they and others are engaging together.
In politics, conversations about partisanship often overlook the reality that ideological considerations can shape conviction independent of party membership. In faith, criticism of institutional behavior — e.g., that of a house of worship — can overlook personal autonomy at the expense of understanding the institution’s true spiritual underpinnings.
A way that I’ve used to address the many different Angles of Perspective (AoP) within a given issue is to “Speak to the -Al’s” — i.e., to address the relevant adjectives that end in “-al.”
In Political considerations, the issues might not actually be Political, but might be Ideological or even Legal or Judicial. Each of the specific AoP can change the subtleties of an effort as simple as a conversation, much less the complexities of a more extensive collaboration. In faith considerations, when a critic challenges the behavior within a “sect” — e.g., a denomination — to what degree are they actually scorning Individual actions and failing to see them as deviations from the sect’s larger Philosophical or Ideological underpinnings?
Ignoring relevant Angles of Perspective can complicate a collaborative effort, but, conversely, understanding them can also enhance a process.
Go up one level
2026’03’20’F: Updated (Minor revisions. Addition of capitalization.)
2023’06’13’W: Published)
iCandybyWangC 