Hi Dave, Steve, Ian and others I know that I've said it before, but in the 17th century Thomas Hobbes wrote:
"For such is the nature of men, that howsoever they may acknowledge many others to be more witty, or more eloquent, or more learned; Yet they will hardly believe there be many so wise as themselves: For they see their own wit at hand, and other mens at a distance." Leviathan ch XIII. Static pattern number MXMXCLMMCIIVV in the library of universe, dep of human recurrent patterns. Honest and respectful intellectual dialogue however, at the 4th level, should be able to bridge over this kind of static dilemma. pass the ball Jan-Anders 28 sep 2011 kl. 13.48 Stev wrote: > Hi Ian, > > Ian: >> I can see that dmb is the "target" of your conversation - and that there is >> a meta-topic here - your not-so-well-hidden agenda. > > Steve: > I thought I was being explicit about the issue being the meta-topic with dmb. > > Ian: >> Do I "approve of" dmb's style of argumentation ? Well no - but his style is >> his style. In every exchange with you or him (or anyone else) I'm looking >> for the point - something to add to "progress" with understanding and living >> in the world. >> >> I can respond to EVERY question with "it depends what you mean" - it adds >> nothing - it's an endless loop. > > > Steve: > Sure, you could do that, but at some point if you and your > conversation partner are communicating well then both you and your > interlocutor agree that you both understand what the other is saying > about an issue even if you disagree about what we ought to conclude. > At some point, "it depends what you mean" is unnecessary. It always > depends, but at some point you understand one another. > > > Ian: >> And therefore I share dmb's frustration with you - make your point or shut >> the fuck up. >> I just happen to have a different style ;-) > > Steve: > I don't know what you could be asking for here (as I have responded > several times, what is _your_ point?) if you are talking about the > issue rather than the meta-issue. On the issue itself for the most > part I have just been trying to defend myself against dmb's attacks. > In that regard "my point" is that I am not a "hack" or "immune to > logic" or "wildly incoherent" or "illogical" or a so-called "thinker" > or simultaneously asserting mutually exclusive positions, etc. > > Best, > Steve 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
