Ian said: My own unwillingness [to discuss the levels in terms of "isms"] is strictly temporary - I'd be as terrified of the Victorian "sterility" as much as you - resolving conflict is what we're about. I really do believe that choices of "governance" are the No.1 issue and if we avoid the existing isms, we will be merely skirting around the issues, rather than addressing the conflict.
dmb says: Look, I'm trying to be civil and I'm trying to stick to the relevant quotes and ideas. I'm trying to avoid using words like "drivel" but look at what you're saying here. You admit that you're at least temporarily unwilling to discuss isms in the first sentence and then admit in the second sentence that such a stance is "merely skirting around the issues". What is the point of temporarily skirting the issues? Your attempts to hold both positions at the same time isn't diplomatic or balanced. Its just contradictory non-sense. And speaking of skirting around things, why are you not addressing the content of my remarks, the quotes I pulled and the case I made? Ian said: ...I can't see how a liberal is ever going to change the mind of a conservative or vice-versa, if each is able to hide behind social level arguments. The only "respect" I'm looking for is for the significance of the levels in Pirsig's model. If changing minds (our own or others) is not the objective then what is? dmb says: Hide behind social level arguments? If somebody tries to do that then all we can do is expose those arguments for what they are. Critical analysis of assertions made is the name of the game. Any kind of philosophical discussion depends on the ability to discern valid arguments from bogus arguments. If some folks can't do that very well, then that too will be revealed. In other words, you can run but you cannot hide. We all have eyes to read with. Ian said: If the argument becomes one of alternative isms winning or losing, then the force of rhetorical power will win - and you, DMB will win hands down, and Platt will simply barefaced deny it ;-) dmb says: The force of rhetorical power will win? Yea, right. It's not because of any understanding of the MOQ or the ability to make a case. No. Of course not. It has nothing to do with valid arguments of having the facts. Its just that I have magical rhetorical powers that can put people under a spell. Yea, that's it. Its all an elaborate trick with words, not to be taken seriously, just like those old sophists, eh? Man, you make me crazy! _________________________________________________________________ Time for vacation? WIN what you need- enter now! http://www.gowindowslive.com/summergiveaway/?ocid=tag_jlyhm 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/
