On Perception

I was trying to understand what goes wrong in some logical conversations, and why the conversing other does not agree to my propositions, even though they are sound. In any such conversation where one is trying to convince the other, win happens only when the other, actually, is convinced. Let me offer a model of a solution.

One is Red, and the other Blue. Red has a proposition, and Blue, another - both conflicting. In trying to convince one or the other that one's proposition is the only correct one, Red and Blue have a conversation, broaching with each other some statements with the intention of corroborating their respective propositions, or as the course of the conversation may have it, accepting the other's proposition, finally.

A trivial case is that Blue buy's Red's proposition, at first go. Another being, Red buying Blue's. Any case other than those, would require Red to make at least one statement, followed by Blue making another, or vice versa, to a finite end-state, or ad infinitum.

Consider the conversation, in it's most cultured form - a conversing party makes only one statement, in a turn, and then it is the other party's turn. Then, one can think of the game as a modified tic-tac-toe game, wherein the party who wins is who's proposition is accepted by the other. Please be cognizant of the fact that the question I will ask in the end has different chances of being valid in other cultures.

Independent of the game play, what results do we have?

A) Red wins game, Blue loses game
B) Red loses game, Blue wins game
C) Red doesn't win; nor does Blue; no one wins

Notice that there is no win-win. However, if you prefer to think of End State (C) as a win-win state, I would neither encourage, nor object.

For the sake of simplicity, we will consider an egalitarian eco-system wherein Red and Blue are free to win or lose, without cause or effect. You will appreciate the fact that victories and failures will stop being natural when there are systemic causes or effects behind them; one can choose to lose by altruism, foolishness, sycophancy, et al, for instances.

Now, let me make a call to your experience, or to your companion's, to grant me a stamp of truth on this: the world has it, that either Red, or Blue, have a chance to double-cross and force victory, in circumstances that would permit it. That is how the world is; that is how victory is; that is how it is - whichever you would like to swallow as an explanation.

Such victory will become basis for perception.

Again, consider a situation: one has lost, there are stakes and one might be answerable, to a party on who one's loss is a matter of significant bearing. One is, at that time, questioned about one's ethic and one's integrity. Try to reckon how frequently such situations occur in our lives.

Assume, further, that the other, and the winning party, is not one entity but a collective or average entity, over time, or identities, or any such real dimensions. Such games will have far more significant bearing on our concerns, and such situations are not rare, either.

We will all accept that costs of losing may well become dear, with or without allowance!

But here is the question I want to corner you with and ask: Can one ever have an ethical responsibility towards perceptions formed due to events such as victory or loss in games like the ones I have essayed?

And I have a belief, which I am willing to test or even give-up: no, one does not have such an ethical responsibility.