Two Front

Words that we hear frequently of late. In fact, we often apply the practices of the designated words is to overcome the problems due to the absence of a meeting point between us with others, or the one with the other because of different opinions.
Differences in opinion to the plural-hidupan is reasonable considering the various corners of the pan-dang that is used by each individual or group. However, because of different opinions and that is the problem that sometimes appears threatening the system (apart from status quo) is in progress. Thus the tension appears in social life. Social harmony terusik start. Freedom of individuals subject to start.
Due to reasons such as it is logical when trying to search for a settlement. By the harmony in social life. Finally, in the life of the plural-ragaman to the point of view, dialogue as a way out of crisis after the unremitting.
Has long been the practice (dialogue) this is done, even many times already. Try our catalog perjala open-nan human social life. How many times already that the practice is done. And we also try to search how many times it works to solve practical problems faced in the social life of plural and diverse perspectives that. That we may find only a failure-the failure of the practice.
But until now we still do. Reason given is that due to the failure of mere technical error. Due to lack of mutual understanding attitude. Is the failure-failure is due to the absence of mutual understanding attitude? If so-do attitude may be mutual understanding through dialogue is done?
If we ask this question on the answer to Lyotard: No. Because the dialogue is going to read another point of view we are, or vice versa. The other is understood based on our perspective. We also understand the point of view based on the other. Are the respective angles memiiki truth itself.
Dialogue is a process that we understand and others understand us. Are in the process of understanding always involves interpretation. Our interpretation of ten-tang and the other interpretation of us. In our interpretation may not be separated from prakon-sepsi-prakonsepsi that we have on the other, so vice versa.
Prakonsepsi owned by our established knowledge about the other. So in the actual dialogue that occurred only afirmasi process and our understanding about the legitimacy of the other or vice versa. Understanding is not obtained through dialogue. Even in the dialogue, because it is a process and legitimacy afirmasi that happens is the conquest. We conquer the other or others subjugate us. Instead of dialogue the major (dominant) menun-dukkan a minor.
During the dialogue is done to get the understanding between us with the other. Lyotard then answers will continue to apply. Catalog of social life will continue to be notes on kega-galan-failure practice of dialogue. Space and the existence of the human subject.
So what if the dialogue should not be way out in the dialogue if kehi-dupan the plural with diverse perspectives are intended to gain understanding is because the bending occurs.
This issue is we try to search on Gadamer. Gadamer for dialogue is to understand the truth about the truth also about us. In the dialog experience ten-tang the other is set. However, this experience is not to create an understanding of the others are pure. Because that happens even pe-nyembunyian about us. Penga-intended to accept the truth about others and about us.
With experience on the other we let ourselves be notified by it on the other, also vice versa. Thus prakonsepsi-prakonsepsi us about the other and the other of us to be not valid.
Finally, the experience of others is important to understand and comprehend the other. A social scientist once said, "to know one you have to be one."
Irrespective of the answers Gadamer and Lyotard seems we need to think about back problems that appear in the plural of life with various perspectives related to the existence of an individual or group.
The conquest caused minded radicalism asusmsi with a problem that could be found if the root causes of problems. Ah-so full settlement is for the root problem. Once it is ditemu-kan then it is cut off the root of the problem
Thus the problem is not with the pluralitas per-bedaan perspective. But we think the pattern.