Ron said: I think it's all relative to what offends different people. Where I come from one can talk like a retarded pornographer and not offend, but as soon as you begin to insult their intelligence by belittling comments, the gloves come off. It all depends on your sensibilities and the respect of others sensibilities. If I remember correctly DmB you were quite offended by my words awhile back, I even got an off-list comment telling me so.
dmb says: Yea, but nobody is denying anybody else's right to be offended. And my objections to your use of profanity did not include a refusal to talk or otherwise stop the conversation. If memory serves you were much more offended by my objections than I was by the profanity. In fact, its been months and you still remember the exact phrase I used to describe that rhetorical style. (retarded pornographer) And, I'd add with emphasis, none of that has anything to do with the kind of rhetoric that offends Matt so profoundly. Yes, I repeatedly accused him of evasion, of failing to co-operate fairly in the conversation, of deleting and dismissing my points. I also complained that this constitutes rude behavior. And what was Matt's response? To bail entirely, which is only a more egregious version of the same evasion. Why is THAT not the issue? I certainly hope nobody thinks that's the way to conduct a quality conversation. Here is one of my central points. Its been repeated several times and in several ways but was never really addressed by Matt. It comes from the last time I tried, from the post that begged and begged Matt not to ignore it again. As I see it, Matt is being pressured here to confront an issue of substance. This pressure takes the form of a series of complaints. But can you honestly say this is abusive? Can you honestly say the complaints have no merit or substance? Really, what the hell is so bad about this? How does this justify anything like Matt's response? Seriously. If you can convince me that Matt is being reasonable in his refusal, I'll wash your car. On May 31st, dmb said to Matt: Okay, I'll grant you the "strong poet" thing. That's not entirely negative. But I'd asked if he didn't "emphasize the negative", not if ever said anything that could possibly be construed as positive. I'm asking you to consider the possibility that Rorty has taught you to be excessively anti-Platonic. When I say you can find Platonism anywhere, that is not a compliment, my friend. I'm asking you to consider the notion that your anti-Platonism is excessive, dogmatic and indiscriminately used. (As in the case of the illness metaphor and the direct/indirect distinction.) Its like your favorite judo move. You love it so much that it doesn't matter if you're being mugged or if somebody is coming in close for a hug. Either way, they're going to hit the matt. I think you're cheating yourself by dismissing so much as Platonism. And its been a conversation stopper way too many times, which cheats people like me out of a quality conversation. ...Aren't the objections to certain metaphors based on the way they have been used to reference metaphysical ideals? And doesn't make all the difference in the world if those images are being used to reference concrete realites? I mean, the common cold is an "illness" and there is nothing Platonic about saying so, right? If Rorty adopts the corrective function of Art from Dewey and Heidegger, then it would also be very close to Pirsig's conception of the code of art. (As you'll see in my essay.) And if I'm using "illness" to describe the corrective function of the "strong poet", whose new metaphors could be seen as the cure for the trouble with the old ones, then what basis do you have to object? If I'm not using the "metaphor" to make any Platonic or "metaphysical" claims, then your objections to the term make no sense. Its like telling me what words I can and cannot use, regardless of what I'm actually saying. That's why its so annoying to have my points deleted and that's what gives me the impression that my points are simply being evaded. And finally, please try to remember that relevance itself is something we can and should debate. To simply declare something irrelevant is pretty much the same thing as dismissing it. If the other guy thinks otherwise, that it is relevant, and tells you so then such dismissal becomes a very ungenerous and willful ignorance. On top of being intellectually weak, that's just rude. Don't you think? _________________________________________________________________ Search that pays you back! Introducing Live Search cashback. http://search.live.com/cashback/?&pkw=form=MIJAAF/publ=HMTGL/crea=srchpaysyouback Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
