RE: MD A metaphysics

From: Ian Glendinning (ian@psybertron.org)
Date: Sun Sep 21 2003 - 23:39:52 BST

  • Next message: David Buchanan: "RE: MD A metaphysics--Resignation"

    David you said
    I mean, wouldn't you agree that
    people ought not use words that they don't understand or assert ideas they
    cannot express? Isn't that some kind of fraud?

    I say
    I do sincerely agree with you.
    I use words and assert concepts the way I understand them,
    but that doesn't mean you will necessarily understand them the same way,
    nor that either of us has a monopoly on their true understanding,
    even if we use the same words. That takes time.

    IOU etc.
    Ian

    -----Original Message-----
    From: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
    [mailto:owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk]On Behalf Of David Buchanan
    Sent: 21 September 2003 20:31
    To: 'moq_discuss@moq.org'
    Subject: RE: MD A metaphysics

    Ian said:
    Remember our "I don't do long mails" spat, DMB ? I don't do long dialectical
    arguments, etc ?

    dmb says:
    Yea. I remember. I'd asked you to explain "bootstrapping". If Marder is
    correct, then my wild guess was the correct answer.

    Ian continued:
    I said I owed you an essay, but for now I genuinely believe it is difficult
    (for some of us at least) to apply simple (logical, dialectical, SOMist)
    rationale to argue pragmatist / MoQist points. It's very frustrating, and no
    doubt sounds like a cop out, arrogant even, but I'm genuine. I'm sure Matt
    is genuine too, just frustrated perhaps.

    dmb says:
    You're right about at least one thing; it certainly does sound like a cop
    out. Its too difficult to be simple? Oh, c'mon. That's pretty hard to buy.
    Its safe to say that every poster has access to the english language and
    that's really all I'm asking for. I don't doubt your sincerity and other
    people's arrogance is the least of my concerns, but it seems pretty clear to
    me that we sometimes get in over our heads. I mean, wouldn't you agree that
    people ought not use words that they don't understand or assert ideas they
    cannot express? Isn't that some kind of fraud? Isn't it a matter of trying
    to appear more informed than is really the case? Isn't that fundamentally
    dishonest? (And confusing as well?) I think so.

    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

    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 : Mon Sep 22 2003 - 00:12:32 BST