me:
>> I think that Doyle is talking about something completely different
>> than I am. Unless convinced otherwise, this is my last contribution to
>> this fruitless sub-thread.
Doyle;:
> This is the classic example of what is wrong with Pen-L. You label this as
> a fruitless sub thread. That disses me in an 'emotional' way since I have
> tried to answer you in a non attacking way.
I can't understand what in heck you were writing about; it did not
seem to be relating to what I was saying at all. If that's "dissing"
you, so be it. But it may reflect my own cognitive limitations. I
can't read others' minds.
("Not attacking me" is not the same as not attacking my opinions, I
am not the same as my opinions. I like it when people disagree with my
opinions in a substantive way.)
> Your
> attack on irrationality is an adherence to a form of communication that is
> 'enlightenment' influenced impossibilities.
Gosh, I'm sorry that I dissed irrationality. It's served us so well in
the past, after all.
(You seem to use the word "enlightenment" in a negative way. I'd agree
that much enlightenment thinking is bad in practice, but some
enlightenment stuff is worthwhile. I wouldn't dismiss it _out of
hand_. What's the alternative?)
> Bias can't be worked out of the
> discussion.
So you say. Why not _try_? why give up without a fight?
BTW, "working out" biases can mean "agreeing to disagree." I never
said anything about attaining _consensus_. That's VERY different from
clarity. I never said that bias could be abolished, Rather, I said
that it shouldn't be appealed to. This is another example of the lack
of communication in this subthread.
> The arguments can't go on without emotional energy.
I did not say otherwise. Please don't read assertions into what I say.
This is another example of the lack of communication in this
subthread.
> the
> functionality of discussion is really based upon irrationality as you call
> it.
so you say. But you never argued for this point at all.
> What I object to is attacking people,
where did I attack you??? Please quote me.
>... and the more or less goal less
> discussions that don't accomplish much.
I don't understand what this means.
> The lack of real working
> relationships between people to accomplish something besides showing off
> clear thinking.
"showing off"?? I wish people would "show off" by thinking and
communicating clearly rather than showing off by appealing to macho
values, fashion, authority, or whatever. ("I'm more revolutionary than
thou," etc.) Not that Doyle appeals to any of these. But some people
do.
--
Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own
way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
