Hi SA ... Inserted at two key points lower down ... after your long paragraph ...
On 8/22/08, Heather Perella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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. [IG] OK SA, I see what you're getting at. No, I'm never afraid to seek, and point out disagreement ... that is the analytical part of the process, the critical analysis, to find out what the real disagreements are. Apart from the relevance / value / importance of the specific disagreements to the point at hand, of course it is not always necessary to point every disagreement for the sake of it. But understanding the actual disagreement is part of finding out any valuable "middle-ground" or any starting points on which new agreement can be constructed. BUT finding and stating real disagreement with (criticising) someone's position, and attacking (criticising) the person with whom you are disagreeing, are a million miles apart. You are quite right, that when we are looking at our difficult subjects where individual perceptions and psychology are part of the real world being understood, and the language is full of rhetoric and history, there is no simple test of "negative personal accusations". This just means we (and our moderator) have to be extra careful, and use respect and trust each other's integrity. One sure sign of breakdown in trust between those arguing is when one person's point includes statements (assertions rather than questions) about the "motive" or "character" of the other party .... but of course so many questions are really rhetorical statements (and we all like a bit of fun too). "No Ad Hominem" is just about the only rule of MoQ Discuss (for good reason), but it still requires skill, judgement, trust and vigilant will to apply it. Even if I was actually arguing with Mr Hitler, in the flesh or by e-mail, I would be duty bound to bite my tongue and avoid criticising him, and focus on criticising his arguments. Hard, but essential ... > > 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. [IG] Agreed, the disagreement - the critical analysis of the arguments - must never be avoided, except for pragmatic exceptions (as noted already). A vacuous pat on the back is worthless, not any kind of real agreement, though we should not totally dismiss the encouragement value of positive (me too) feedback entirely. The point is really about remembering to disagree with the arguments, not with the person. If you wanna disagree with a person - ie when you've given up on real argument - look 'em in the eye, over a dueling pistol (or a pint, or a cuddle, or a wrestling lock - human to human) - or if that fails, via a mutually trusted mediator, but not by trading e-mail rhetoric. Regards Ian. 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/
