dmb, Pitting 'clarity and precision' against 'sloppiness and gibberish' is setting up a false dichotomy. They are all somewhat subjective terms and dependent on context and perspective, with a full range of presentations between such poles. Better to try to demonstrate by example, with encouragement. Besides there are others, those that support you and whose postings are far from perfect, that you seem to gladly accept their approval without criticism. Your selectivity in criticizing is quite suspicious.
Marsha On Aug 10, 2013, at 5:41 PM, david buchanan <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 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
