Robin, gotta give this short shrift because there's a pile of work I need to be doing this evening. It's an interesting issue; maybe we can take it up again soon.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra <no_reply@...> wrote: <snip> > If it is all a matter of pure subjectivity, and we can never > establish any standard of objective truth in discussing a > matter like this, then why was anything said for or against > these different points of view? Because it's enjoyable to have one's opinions challenged and see what one can come up with to defend them? Or modify them, if need be? It's intellectual tennis. Rarely does one have a clear win or loss, but the thinking muscles get a good workout. > I sense that the very decisiveness, authoritativeness, and > certainty of what you have just told me borders on the > subjective, and therefore I am going to say this: Your > peremptory assessment that there is nothing that can be > said in defence of my notion of degrees of objectivity > within a subjective point of view, is itself unbeknownst > to you, a subjective point of view. Yikes, I never asserted and certainly didn't mean to suggest that there was nothing that could be said to defend your notion of objectivity--to the contrary, by saying I didn't understand it, I was implicitly requesting that you explain it. Also note the qualifiers in what I wrote--"seems to me" and "as far as I can see"--that signal subjectivity. Basically, I was saying, Here's how I see the subjective/objective components of the Benneton discussion; how do you see them? > But I do not wish you become your enemy, Judy! (Freudian slip there? You don't want me to become my own enemy?) Responding to what you meant to write: You'd have to try a lot harder than this to become my enemy, Robin. That's 50 for me. Back at the usual time (hopefully with a response in our other conversation, maybe some additional comments on the subjectivity/objectivity question).
