On 1 Sep, 12:04, Flammarion <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Yeah. Or you could just answer my questions.

The problem is the world of assumption contained in your use of
"just".  There is no possibility of a context-free 'objective'
exchange of views.  There must be some sympathetic matching of
contexts of understanding, even if only for the honourable purpose of
comprehending a viewpoint as intended in order to discount it with a
clear conscience.  Popper is my touchstone for this, in that he always
attested - and demonstrated - the commitment to attack arguments only
in their *strongest* form, often explicitly strengthening the received
version before going on to criticize it on that basis.  In my
experience, those who have been most successful in changing my views
have done so by demonstrating such a superior insight into my own
position that I was able to see my own error.

Please don't misunderstand my remarks as any personal criticism.  If
you review the thread I'm sure you wouldn't dispute that I have been
ready to respond to your questions.  I do however conclude on this
evidence that, considered as a dialogue, it seems unlikely to arrive
at any concurrence of view, or even a clear understanding over the
essence of the divergence.  And this is all the more to be regretted
as I feel, based on more considered presentations of your ideas (e.g.
your website, occasionally abstracted here), that our views are often
more compatible than would seem likely in the heat of these more
fractious skirmishes.


> On 1 Sep, 11:19, David Nyman <david.ny...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 2009/9/1 Flammarion <peterdjo...@yahoo.com>:
> > Peter, I've considered whether anything is to be gained from my
> > responding further, and much as I regret coming to this conclusion, I
> > don't think we can make any further progress together on this topic.
> > If such were possible, I suspect it would require a great deal more
> > patience and willingness to consider world-views more comprehensively,
> > probably on both our parts, rather than reciprocal logic-chopping that
> > strikes me as fundamentally at cross-purposes.
> Yeah. Or you could just answer my questions.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to