Hi Ian, Back on the keyboard, again. Goin' thru my outbox one by one so we start with you... and besides, I have been contemplating this, so...
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 1:56 AM, Ian Glendinning <[email protected]>wrote: > OK John, but I actually withheld a paragraph ... it's not just being > argumentative, it's the style of argumentation, the point of > argumentation. > > It is certainly NOT "the point" of MoQ to be argumentative. > Right. I didn't come here for an argument, I came here for an ARGUMENT. I've seen the skit. Several times. Anybody can play with the connotations of THAT word, so lets just disambiguate, right off the bat. Ok? There's a style of argumentation that puts "winning" (and I mean that mainly upon a social level) above truth. It happens a lot. And I call that "ego-fighting" rather than argumentation. Since metaphysics, is a branch of philosophy, I like to use the philosophical definition of "argument" when I'm partaking in a philosophical forum, right? And the philosophical definition of argument is quite different than the thing I call ego-fighting, and other people call argument. In philosophical circles, an argument is sorta like "equation" in math circles. It's just a name for the logical constructions in which we dwell and have our being. That's all. And I can no more refrain from constructing argumentation in a philosophical forum, than an athlete can kindly refrain from breathing. Or a math dweeb refrain from equating. It's just sorta what "intellect" is, man. And its as irresistible as bar ladies and alcohol. It just comes with the territory of what we do and where we are. I think the tricky thing is, is that we all do both - ego-fighting AND logical (objective) argumentation and thus it becomes questionable as to which we are doing in the moment. Am I being logical, merely to one-upmanship you or anybody I "argue" with? mea culpa. There's a sense in which I do want to win my arguments. And I own that. But the method, I guess, is everything. It's a judgment call. I'll take advice, but it's not my call, in the end. It's Horse's. > The point of SOMism maybe, traditional analytical philosophy maybe, > but not the MoQ, which tries hard NOT to set up subjects and objects > against each other, but to find the underlying patterns of which they > are simply a manifestation. Same is true of two people in an argument > ... they are not two distinct objects/subjects one against the other. > It requires an attitude or intention to make that so. > > I agree intention is key. Now, let me ask you a half-rhetorical question. Is a guy on a philosophy forum who is arguing for the value of community-minded thinking, really arguing on behalf of his own individualistic status? Or is he arguing for what he sees as ultimately true? The elimination of status-games in the pursuit of an excellent whole, well-knit and communicative and enlightening? Cuz that's been my stated intention from the beginning. And the fact that I find myself thrust into a forum where ego-fighting is more prevalent than argumentation, is sort of disturbing to me and I can't take all the blame for it. If that was your point. > There has to be a basic level (pattern) of agreement before there is > any point to arguing. How should I put it "No point arguing with > someone you don't (basically) agree with." > > Ian > > Ok, and a forum where everybody only goes all the time, "I agree completely!" no matter what, is stupid and boring. If dialectical opposition never arises, we'll certainly have to create some. You're welcome. John 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
