On Jun 21, 1:45 pm, Russell Standish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> You assume way too much about my motives here. I have only been trying to
> bash some meaning out of the all too flaccid prose that's being flung
> about at the moment. I will often employ counterexamples simply to
> illustrate points of poor terminology, or sloppy thinking. Its a
> useful exercise, not a personal attack on beliefs.

Russell, If you believe that a particular thought is poorly expressed
or sloppy, I would appreciate any help you might offer in making it
more precise, rather than 'bashing' it.  Sometimes conversations on
the list feel more like talking past one another, and this in general
isn't 'a useful exercise'.  My comment to Brent was motivated by a
perception that you'd been countering my 1-personal terminology with 3-
person formalisms.  Consequently, as such, they didn't strike me as
equivalent, or as genuine 'counterexamples': this surprised me, in
view of some of the other ideas you've expressed.  So I may well have
been too swift to assign certain motives to you, not having detected
any pedagogically-motivated intent to caricature, and I would welcome
your more specific clarification and correction.

I should say at this point that I too find the 'terminology' task very
trying, as virtual any existing vocabulary comes freighted with pre-
existing implications of the sort you have been exploiting in your
ripostes, but which I didn't intend.  I would welcome any superior
alternatives you might suggest.  Trying or not, I'm not quite ready to
give up the attempt to clarify these ideas.  If you think the exercise
misconceived or poorly executed, it's of course up to you to choose to
'bash', satirise, or ignore it, but I would particularly welcome open-
ended questions.

> Brent is also doing exactly this, sometimes
> satirically.

Again, I don't mean to seem humourless, but my basic intention is a
genuine exchange of ideas, rather than satire or caricature.  So I do
try to empathise as best I can with the issues on the other side of
the debate, before deciding if, and how, I disagree.  How successful I
may be is another matter.

I'd be more than willing, as ever, to have another go!

Cheers

David

> On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 08:44:54PM -0000, David Nyman wrote:
> > There is no analogy between the two cases, because
> > Russell seeks to pull the entire 1-person rabbit, complete with 'way
> > of being', out of a hat that contains only 3-person formalisations.
> > This is magic with a vengeance.
>
> You assume way too much about my motives here. I have only been trying to
> bash some meaning out of the all too flaccid prose that's being flung
> about at the moment. I will often employ counterexamples simply to
> illustrate points of poor terminology, or sloppy thinking. Its a
> useful exercise, not a personal attack on beliefs.
>
> BTW - I'm with you Brent. Brent is also doing exactly this, sometimes
> satirically.
>
> Cheers
>
> --
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> A/Prof Russell Standish                  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
> Mathematics
> UNSW SYDNEY 2052                         [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Australia                                http://www.hpcoders.com.au
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to