Arlo said to Ian:
... you have seemed to have come out in favor of this "separate but valid
dual-interpretation" idea. If I 'knew' what you thought before, I have to say
that it seems this "intellect -> static -> SOM -> anti-intellect" path is one
you- at least seem- to support. In your defense of Marsha, for example, you
seem to support this notion that she is "context one" and DMB is "context two",
and it is against this reductionist binary I am arguing. You seem to interpret
DMB's demands, for example for coherence and clarity as somehow inherently
"SOM", even going so far as to imply that intellectual quality is akin to
'scientific objectivism'. Like Marsha, you seem to think that incoherence is a
necessary 'step' to free oneself from the choking dogma of intellectual
patterns. Maybe you'll come back and tell me you don't think this, but it
certainly comes across that way to me.
Take your recent complaint that this forum shouldn't be "confined by the
standards of existing philosophical academe". What "standards" are you
referring to? Clarity? Coherence? Precision? I gather you must, because this
was prefaced by: All I will says is, to your points about sloppiness and
gibberish vs clarity and precision. Yes it's a philosophy discussion group -
but it is not a discussion group necessarily confined by the standards of
existing philosophical academe." ...So you reduced "clarity and precision" to
"objective, scientistic, syllogistic standards", and make that claim that
"context one" is, somehow, exempt from these. Do you see that right there, just
like in saying "not allowing a narrow SOMist (Context 2) view of intellect to
dominate" you've reduced "context two" to "objective, scientistic" discourse? I
mean, again, maybe this is just sloppy rhetoric or sloppy thinking, but don't
put the fault on me. ...
dmb says:
My thoughts exactly.
Obviously, this discussion group (or any group like it) demands that we use
words carefully. If Ian didn't mean to equate context two with narrow SOMist
thinking, then he is a very bad writer because that's what his sentence means.
It's very unfair to dismiss the importance of clarity and precision and then
blame the reader for misunderstanding such careless utterances. It clearly
demonstrates what happens when you don't care about intellectual standards.
Communication cannot occur. Ideas cannot be exchanged, negotiated, clarified or
otherwise discussed. Without intellectual quality, there is no way to discuss
the MOQ, and that's the whole point of being here.
Rather than clarify or qualify or explain, folks like Ian and Marsha just want
to protect their egos. They just issue denials and dismissals rather than deal
with the substance of the matter. In this case, for example, Ian just expects
Arlo to know him better, as if the actual statements and assertions were
secondary and trivial compared to their personal familiarity. That's backwards.
To accept or reject ideas based on how much you like the person who said is
childish and dishonest. To reply for the sake of pride rather than a genuine
effort to exchange ideas is sleazy and unbecoming.
That's why this place is dying; the production of drivel is defended every
freaking day. That's why nobody worth listening to comes around here.
Sigh. I gotta quit this place.
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
