you guys are funny. straight guy and funny guy eh..? how about less of the melodrama and get to the point...us amateurs need some clarity so is psychological nominalism saying that all awareness is linguistic? if so then this is not radically empirical or moqish to my mind...seems quite simple. how can you guys spend so many electrons not understanding this? i think a lot of awareness is linguistically filtered, most of it even, but what of novelty then? what of aesthetic arrest? what of meditative states, epiphanies, beauty! what about music! how can people get paid to write such fucking rubbish.......
--- On Wed, 8/4/09, david buchanan <[email protected]> wrote: From: david buchanan <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [MD] FW: Quine and the Linguistic Turn To: [email protected] Received: Wednesday, 8 April, 2009, 4:59 AM Matt said to dmb:... it's not your opinions, it's you. Your manner of conveyance, your argumentive patterns, your dialectical style, your reading habits, your idea of evidence, of closure, of debate, the personality you choose to present in writing. ... in person, we'd probably have a pretty good conversation. But in writing, I find you toxic. dmb says:Toxic? Okay. That's not impossible to understand. I thought my case was pretty strong in both style and substance and it must feel like some kind of assault to be on the receiving end of such a thing. And to the extent that this discomfort prompts you to walk away, the debate has no chance of bearing fruit. I mean, even if I accept the all the responsibility for conversational toxicity there is still your decision to bail out. Ending the debate is not something I sought nor want and in fact I find it frustrating to the extent that the substance of my case was hardly even touched. Maybe my posts would seem less toxic if you read them out loud in a sweet, gentle voice. Maybe you could read it in a whispered voice. I mean, you can only work with what's in the posts but then there's the other half of the equation. Its up to you as to how you want to take it, how you want to read it. And is it really my responsibility to adjust my style to suit your sensibilities? Yea, to some extent. Nobody would want to put up with an endless stream of personal insults or take the time to wade through irrational or contradictory arguments. There ARE rules to this game. But it seems to me that you're drawing the penalties here, not me. Surely one of those rules says its uncool to bow out on the basis of your opponent's style, toxic or otherwise. That just doesn't seem kosher. I mean, how is that objection anything other than a version of the famously bogus ad hominem argument? Can a person's arguments be dismissed because they're rudely expressed? Of course you know all that already and these personal insults were never meant to be philosophically sound anyway. I suppose your point is just to let me know what toxicity feels like, to give me a taste of my own medicine. The point of responding to my confession of hurt feelings with personal insults and a general dismissal was to dramatize my insensitivity, I suppose. Either you are gifted in the art of irony or you're just a lot like me. _________________________________________________________________ Rediscover Hotmail®: Get e-mail storage that grows with you. http://windowslive.com/RediscoverHotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Rediscover_Storage1_042009 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/ Enjoy a better web experience. Upgrade to the new Internet Explorer 8 optimised for Yahoo!7. Get it now. 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/
