Matt responds to Ian: We, each of us, bring out of each other different sides of each other. Sometimes I get tired of people not being able to talk to each other. When that happens, the thing to do--it seems to me--is to start at the beginning, with principles of interpretation, the rules of the game of rationality. You say what I said isn't "contentious," but when I started posting interpretations of Pirsig that were contentious in content, one of the things I was slammed for was my method, my interpretive principles. The reason to reiterate these, whatever they are, isn't to bash each other again with one more weapon, but to try to start the conversation over. That's what I've realized in my old age.
Ron: I think that is a fine way of expressing the problems faced by the participants of any philosophical conversation. Often the appeal of re-establishing the rules of the game of rationality, particularly in the the case of some participants, gets pushed aside for no other reason than their personal style of arguementation. Any appeal to rules is interpreted as an authoritive move to force them into a particular type of rhetorical style. Which, for all intent destroys any meaningful dialog. Part of the reflection in the heat of any discussion should focus on the intent of why we participate. are we here to participate in active inquirey and share or are we here to only express our own interpretations and down play all others. Each of us should reflect on why we participate and if it is'nt motivated by the love of wisdom then perhaps some of us really need to take a hard look at who we are and why we choose to participate in philosophical conversations. The posts are appreciated Matt, thank you. .. 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
