Matt, By all means, and I wish you both the best of luck at finding an agreeable means of discussing your interests.
Marsha On Nov 30, 2010, at 1:29 PM, Matt Kundert wrote: > > 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
