DMB said "[Ian] seems pretty mixed-up to me" and accused me of equivocation and being dismissive again.
And equally I could say that's your failing, but I didn't, I made a specific point, using specific words you yourself had used. Clearly you don't agree with Marsha on "the reification issue" ... you are making an issue of it. I said as far as I could see, you agree what it (reification) is for practical purposes. You have your own reasons / motivations to argue about it (both), and I would agree Marsha is pushing it in the more nihilist direction, in terms of which issues you both apply it to - for reasons which are at least in part a reaction to your own pushing in other areas I reckon. Contact sport - yes, clearly, philosophy and life, both. If you want to brand my seeking better ways to play the game - choosing my particular meta-contact-moves as standing on the sidelines, that is your choice, not mine, notice. (Funny how you react against my game-theory take on the whole process.) Anyway, I am much more interested in significance than definitions. Ian On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 3:03 PM, david buchanan <[email protected]> wrote: > > Ian said: > > ...DMB you are reifying the word reify, attaching yourself to your > understanding of it and defending it aggressively .... against another > person. My perspective .... you, DMB and Marsha actually agree on this > subject - what reification is for practical purposes - where you differ is in > attitiude to presumed motivations for arguing. IMHO natch. > > > dmb says: > Why do you equivocate on every single topic? Why do you constantly dismiss > every distinction and difference as an attitude problem? > > And, no. I certainly do NOT agree with Marsha on the issue of reification. As > with the debate on truth, your failure to see the difference is YOUR failure. > The MOQ says it's value all the way down but Marsha is pushing an > anti-intellectual nihilism, a self-defeating relativism. The difference is > actually quite huge. For her, reification is not just a conceptual error. It > is inherent to all conceptualization. I think that's not just wrong, it's > logically impossible and it leads to absurd conclusions. Why would anyone > need "motivations" for disputing this foolish nihilism? Who doesn't want to > defeat a bad idea and assert a better one? If that counts as aggression, then > I guess philosophy is a contact sport. And I guess your role is to stand on > the sidelines and tell the players not to play? To tell the players they're > all on the same team? Seems pretty mixed-up to me. > > > > > > > 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 > 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
