dmb, On Aug 11, 2013, at 9:55 AM, david buchanan <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > Marsha said to 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. > > > dmb says: > Subjective and suspicious? > > Hardly. > > Arlo and I are both complaining about a very specific and concrete example of > sloppy gibberish. > > Like I said, 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. > > Arlo and I both quoted this specific example, among others, wherein Ian > expressed his concern for "allowing a narrow SOMist (Context 2) view of > intellect to dominate." > > Do you have anything relevant to say about the substance of the matter? The substance of the matter is as I said, pitting 'clarity and precision' against 'sloppiness and gibberish' is setting up a false dichotomy. As my name was included in the paragraph, I can only state I made no such statement about Paul Turner's theory; I never mentioned SOM and there was no reason to put me into the statement with the "Like Marsha, you seem to think that incoherence is a necessary 'step' to free oneself from the choking dogma of intellectual patterns." You'll not get Ian to further explain what he means by your tactics. > Do you have anything intelligent to say about the actual topic? Any ideas at > all? Now you are an authority on 'intelligence'??? No, I don't think you are. You haven't even presented a concise definition of what you mean by the term 'intelligence'. Intelligent? Would that be intelligent as determined by you? As I've said in the past, I am not cowed or wowed by your presenting yourself as an authority. You are not an authority to diagnose ego disorders either, as when you wrote "Rather than clarify or qualify or explain, folks like Ian and Marsha just want to protect their egos." I don't have such a high regard for you as you seem to have of yourself. > Or would you prefer to prove my point? Sure, use sarcasm in place of reason, that really encourages people to express their values. That's what is so strange, Dr. McWatt says be creative, put things in your own words, offer new tea, express your self. And you, well, your insults shut people up. > Like I said, "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". Slipping the conclusion into the premise is called circular reasoning. It's an obvious fallacy. > The distinction between precision and clarity is a false dichotomy? That is > ridiculous nonsense. Ridiculous nonsense? If it is philosophical _discussion_ you are hoping to engage in, insults won't do the trick. > Let's hope your doctor doesn't believe anything so absurd. A doctor might use techinical language that one didn't understand or be so abrupt and aggressive in his presentation that one became confused and didn't comprehend. No matter, I don't think he'd make a statement as sarcastically absurd as yours, or I'd find another doctor. Look it up, the 'false dichotomy fallacy' is quite common. Marsha 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
