Hi Arlo, I can assure you I am, as ever, looking for constructive progressive possibilities, and I have to say I am relieved by your response.
Yes, I read what you (anyone) writes - but with the rhetoric and irony on top of (admitted, but oft re-quoted) sarcasm on top of opinions of the author's original intent, you appreciate not ever nuance of intent is clear unless you can follow the entire dialogue - which I rarely can. The "non-humans in the S/I level" question - I have to say was not at the forefront of what I was reading - looks like another change of subject. I am specific / selective on what I am actually commenting on by the snips below. When I'm commenting on that I'll let you know. I may be back. And by the way I totally agree with your aim of separating interpretation of individual understanding of the MoQ from interpretation of the author's intent in the actual text (in a sense I no longer really concern myself with the latter - that's history and my aims are forward - but I can understand the scholarly interest). The kind of dishonesty on which Bo ultimately impaled himself, but he's not alone there on either side of the argument. Calling me "wishy-washy" (personally) doesn't help mate, but your clarification has helped. Thanks. Faith restored. Ian On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 5:12 PM, Arlo Bensinger <[email protected]> wrote: > [Ian] > No-one not even Mary (or Ron or Marsha or John, or whoever) is arguing for > total subjectivism. > > [Arlo] > Of course not, I think this has been part of my point, ... 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
