Hi dmb, I've actually got lots of catching up to do ( as usual) but for some reason I'm starting with you. I deal with whichever screen pops up first I guess, & 4 some reason, today is your day....
> > dmb says: > > Steve recently asked me why the conversation always seems to "devolve" into > a debate about the conversation itself. Well, this response of yours is a > fairly typical example of the reasons why. John: Good! Then I can deal with concrete example rather than wondering wtf you are whining about in nebulous land. I mean, you *like* dealing with the concrete, doncha dave? dmb: There has been a shift or transformation from one context to another so that > the meaning of my comments has been wildly distorted. John: I know! great fun, when you think about it, this ugly art known as "rhetoric". mebbe you'd prefer to define it as "rhetor-ick" you seem to have such an averse reaction and all . dmb: > I was talking to Steve about Pirsig's "failure" to talk about love in his > attempt to be taken seriously by academic philosophers and you've responded > as if I said people in the heartland shouldn't talk about love. And of > course, it would be completely ridiculous to suggest that one ought not talk > about love at a wedding ceremony. > > John: Ok then. I guess my point is that the MoQ oughta be treated like a marriage ceremony rather than a funeral dirge. Something being born, rather than something dying. If I had a point to make in this ole life of mine, I guess that'd be it. dave. dmb: > See, by taking my comments out of the context in which they were made, > which was about Pirsig's MOQ, and putting them into the context of heartland > dads who love their babies, the meaning is rather dramatically altered and > the meaning of my comments is thereby construed as something very different > from what was actually being said. This sort of distortion is not only > intellectually bogus because the context changes the meaning, it also relies > almost entirely on cheap sentimentality and it fabricates a rather silly > straw man, as if anyone would be opposed to hope or babies. > > John: You'd have a great point, if... and that's a big if, dave, it was absolutely unthinkable to be opposed to hope or babies. But the truth is, its not. There is thinking, there are philosophies, which are academically respected and promoted, which ARE opposed to both hope AND babies. And so your whole argument falls flat on its face. again. I just HOPE and pray, the MoQ is not one of 'em and that's what I work for, believe in and promote with my words. But then, I'm an idealist, as you already know. Absolutely. Which gives you the hives and an altogether averse reaction, right? So really, there's no reason to get into it all. dmb: Criticizing moves like this is NOT the cause of conversational devolution. > Moves like that have already spoiled the conversation and complaining about > it could, if taken seriously, put the conversation back on track. > > > John: > You are right, of course. This thing is derailed before it can even start. your loss, 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
