Well, that is the purpose of recontextualization. When I first learned about the nature of rhetoric, about what it meant for rhetoric to be truly all the way down (from Rorty), I got very caught up in the idea of always wading out onto ground you and not someone else has prepared. That's why Dave has for years said I've been indirect: because I used always to say variations of, "if I let you have these terms, I lose, so here are some new terms...." The problem, as Dave notes with the cringe in his response in this thread, is that he feels the deck is stacked my way when I say stuff. Naturally, of course, just as it is for him.
However, Dave has stated a very interesting attempt at a neutral ground with which we might approach each other. And I'd like to take it up (when I have the time, which is not at this moment). > From: [email protected] > Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 02:50:18 -0500 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [MD] Philosophy and Abstraction > > > Matt, > > Caution: If you let dmb frame the issue "Let me put it this way", he just > might try to screw you with it. > > > Marsha 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/md/archives.html
