Whining again?
I have no interesting in defending myself. Why don't find a way to put together a post that inspires some discussion you find important? On May 15, 2011, at 10:50 AM, david buchanan wrote: > > > Marsha said to dmb: > Didn't you learn your lesson with demanding the standard seven-word > dictionary definition for 'reify'? Then suddenly on February 19th, you > finally acknowledge a broader meaning. > > > dmb says: > No. > > Sadly, you misuse and misconstrue words so badly that your position can be > defeated by simply quoting the dictionary. > > I cited the dictionary to show you that you do not understand what > "reification" means, to show that you're misusing the term. That is also why > I quoted the dictionary definitions of "static" and "dynamic". I'm drawing > your attention to the basic meaning of these terms because you obviously > don't understand what they mean. It's like you never saw a dictionary in your > life. It's like you don't even understand the definition of "definition". > Your use of terms constitutes a criminal abuse of the english language and of > course nonsense is the inevitable result. Your sentences make no sense > because you don't care what words and concepts actually mean to those who use > them. > > One cannot have a conversation with another unless there is a willingness to > really listen. And the willingness to listen depends on a willingness to > change one's mind, a willingness to be persuaded by words, by reasons and by > evidence. But you're constantly making a hair-brainded case against exactly > that. Your response is to always sidestep the meaning and the substance of > the issue and retreat into some solipsistic world where you have your own > definitions of every term in question. It's sad to watch, really. It must be > a lonely place. > > Haven't you ever noticed that the word "definition" comes from the root word > "finite". That means it has limits. They have plenty of flexibility, > especially in the hands of an artist, but the meaning of a word in not > infinite. At a certain point, one's usage will violate the boundaries of > meaning. Using "static" to mean "ever-changing" would be a clear example > pushing a meaning beyond its breaking point. In fact, "ever-changing" is a > pretty good description of the very opposite term. "Ever-chainging" is almost > exactly what "static" does NOT mean. You usage destroys the meaning of word. > It's simple the wrong idea. That's also the case with the way you use > "reification". For you, "reification" is not a particular kind of conceptual > error, it's an inherent feature of the conceptualization process. What a > mess! On top of the sheer hackery and misuse of terms, you also bring an > attitude that says static patterns are a prison and concepts are inherently > erroneous. No wonder you'r e > never persuaded by evidence or reason! You're like the Ronald Reagan of > philosophy. "Coherent thinking isn't the solution, it's the problem. We've > gotta get philosophers off our backs and deregulate the dictionaries." > > But these mistakes have already been explained to you many times by many > different posters. As we all know by now. the sun will come up tomorrow and, > once again, the point will be lost on 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 ___ 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
