From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Thu May 19 2005 - 15:28:11 BST
Hi Mike...
On 19 May 2005 at 11:54, Michael Hamilton wrote:
Mark, thanks for supplying some revealing background on the current
discussion. I find it significant that Chomsky is not merely a point
of recent disagreement, he's been there from the very beginning.
Considering the political views of both of you, this was nothing less
than a disaster as far as productive debate is concerned: Chomsky has
been the subject of conflicting positive and negative caricatures by
liberals and conservatives respectively. Needless to say, all such
caricatures are oversimplifications. So it seems to me that the
continuing antagonism of your discussion is yet another victim of the
mutual "liberal"/"conservative" prejudice. As this prejudice is a
pervasive value between two opposing *social* groups, it's no
surprise that it has clouded your evauluations of each others' ideas
(intellectual patterns clouded by the social patterns on which they
are founded). In other words, you immediately focus on the bad
quality you perceive in each others' writings, and this hi-jacks any
potential finding of intellectual common ground.
msh:
Point taken. Thanks.
However, a clarification: this particular bone of contention isn't
about Chomsky or the red-herring liberal-conservative dichotomy.
Regardless of the topic, productive debate is made impossible when
one or more of the participants is unable or unwilling to provide
argument and evidence in support of his opinions.
I've had many productive discussions with people whose political
inclinations are quite different to my own; see for example the
Understanding Quality and Power thread from late last year. Or take
a look at the current threads on Capitalism.
So, the problem is not that my interpretation of someone's argument
is tainted by their politics, or mine. The problem arises when
conclusions are endlessly repeated, hand-in-hand with a refusal to
provide supporting argument and evidence, AT ALL. This is dogmatism
not philosophical inquiry.
Thanks again,
Mark Steven Heyman (msh)
-- InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983 Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archives: Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu May 19 2005 - 15:32:19 BST