Ian:
> Hi SA, must have missed it ... interesting question.
> Of course I value disagreement over matters of substance,
> it's an
> opportunity to find new agreement ... and "keep the
> dialogue going"
> whilst we do so. I can't believe I've ever said
> anything like "and
> we'll all agree" ... 'cos I certainly
> don't believe that ... that
> would be like "agreeing to disagree", which is
> only ever a temporary
> "holiday" in pragmatic terms.
SA: Ok. About the "and we'll all agree", I was trying to think back without
anything specific to quote. That's why I was asking you this question. This
question is the context. I'll explain further, further on down the post.
Ian:
> There are certain kinds of disagreement that I generally
> avoid / object to, particularly by e-mail, better over a beer or a
> walk in the
> woods. Two main kinds ....
> (1) Negative accusations over the integrity, motives and
> personal
> character of your interlocutor. These are ad hominem
> attacks - a
> no-no. Should be moderated.
SA: This was partly why I brought this question up to you. This seems to be
"your thing", your focus. I'm not narrowing this down to you only focus on
this kind of stuff, but this is something you like to discuss "middle way" and
all. This is good. This is why I brought (partly) the question up to you for
how does one identify "negative accusations... (to ones) personal character"
amidst a nonseparation of philosophy and who one is. You see, I'm identifying
philosophy as way of life, and I don't stand outside of this way of life that I
live. I can see how sometimes the lines blur. For instance, Ham will say he's
doing metaphysics and others aren't (note his recent post: "Arlo, you don't
like metaphysics, any more than does your illustrious author. However, since
my thesis is founded on metaphysical concepts, to answer your question I'm
going to have to speak in terms that are foreign to you."). The implication is
very clear, correct? He's
said this in the past. Now, am I getting too personal when I say Ham's being
deceptive here? Or how when some bring up essentialist ways or absolutisms,
and they admit they are, and then I go on to say their being undemocratic or
even dictorial? In the past when I compared somebody to Hitler, I guess that
was too far on my part ONLY if what Hitler did is recognized or thought of when
"Hitler's" name comes up. In the past I was more focused on Hitler's persona
of a dictator and I do think that if a philosophy/a way of life proposes
absolutism or essentialism the impact of these ways into the lives of people,
down through the social level would be a catastrophe. The philosophy of
western civilization (the Plato kind, though not an expert on western
philosophy, but not Amish, Quaker, or others of course), China's (maybe the
Confucian kind, there again, not sure where the absolutism and empirically
rooted philosophy will be found here, though
definitely not Daoist and no Buddhist society has ever waged war), and etc...,
these philosophies, these ways of life, obviously thought out, were warlike.
Wasn't Alexander the Great a student of Aristotle? We're not only dealing with
ideas here, but we are also dealing with ideas that can mean something and do
something. For instance, did Darwin really think his ideas of natural
selection would lead into social selection in the Third Reich? I don't know,
obviously he didn't foresee a Third Reich, but what about human engineered
social selection? A humble philosophy is needed and I find the moq to be such
a philosophy. Do you see what I mean? Yet, also, as I point out, a philosophy
is a way of life, I believe, and thus is completely with the person advocating
any particular philosophy, so, at times it may seem a personal attack is
happening, but maybe not, for ideas can be experienced to be possessed by a
person so much that once the idea is
attacked the person feels as if they are being attacked too.
Ian:
> (2) Debates that start from political ideological premises.
> Which I
> tend to avoid rather than object too, just a matter of
> preference ...
> not enough time in the world in my mind to progress these
> beyond
> sloganizing, slanging-matches, unless the intelocutor shows
> intent to
> drop lay the ideological points aside from the argument.
SA: Yeah. Trying to outwit somebody that is already entrenched in a certain
political way is futile.
Ian:
> Basically, it's a question of motive SA. My motive in
> argumentation is
> to find something, anything, worth agreeing, adding value
> to the
> world, not to "avoid" argument or explanation. I
> avoid (some)
> arguments that look unlikley to add any value, for
> practical reasons
> of bandwidth and sanity.
SA: Yes, but what about pointing out were you disagree? We can point out what
we value, but if we don't point at were we disagree, wouldn't we be giving
support to the whole philosophy that somebody is espousing for the other person
walks away with only a pat on the back and a good job, but with no intellectual
criticism given to them, then they think everything they are saying is good.
I'm just (I know DM doesn't like that word but I find it appropiate at
times to place emphasis) curious.
The context was a sudden-like question to you, for it seems at times
people don't want to show their disagreement, but of course this might also be
due to me providing a hyper amount of disagreement to certain posters in this
forum, doesn't seem hyper to me, but I might be blind to how this compares or
presents itself to other people. So, I was thinking about some who post here,
the ones I've most recently shed my disagreements with here on this forum due
to what I find to be their repeated rigid values (bringing up a concept that
Ron recently dug out of Pirsigs' terminology) and their repeated snubbing of
others without any or lack of intellectual patterns to support their position
on certain issues. I've quoted their comments and given commentary on their
words. So have others here in this forum. I was then beginning to think about
you, for you come off as somebody that puts a lot of effort into avoiding to
even say you disagree with
somebody, and I was beginning to wonder if you're afraid to disagree with
somebody, are sensitive to disagreement, and/or have something else going on
with this stance of yours. I then began to think this is the kind of
discussion this forum could use, for, this seems to be something that rises up
in this forum from time to time and a conscious discussion on this occurrence
would be good.
Ian:
> As I have said before Mary Parker-Follett, would be my
> archetype, in
> my position on the subject of disagreement and
> argumentation. Hope
> that helps. What was the context of your original question?
SA: I may have looked her up before, but I'll have to do that again. This
seems to definitely be your arena of thought so I thought I'd step in for
awhile and see what's happening.
as the mist melts away in the morning sun,
the smoke disappears into the sky,
this quiet is where these go,
SA
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/
