From: Wim Nusselder (wim.nusselder@antenna.nl)
Date: Mon Jun 28 2004 - 06:07:46 BST
Dear David B.,
How can you think 27 Jun 2004 11:33:04 -0600 that
'[my] requests for restraint and civility contains the implication that
[your] concerns and criticisms amount to little more than petty bickering
and childish name-calling' when I explicitly wrote 20 Jun 2004 07:00:07
+0200:
'both of you make constructive points in your postings too' and that I still
read them?
How can you write that
'[I] practically refuse to even aknowledge its existence' (i.e. what you see
as a social/intellectual conflict) when we have agreed in the 'junk or
politics on this list' thread
1) that the conflict you describe (and which I DID acknowledge when we
discussed it previously) can be seen as a conflict between intellectual
justification versus intellectual criticism of social patterns of value and
2) that a shorthand way of referring to it is 'society' versus 'intellect'?
(From your 3 Apr 2004 16:02:47 -0700 post:
'dmb had said:
"It hardly matters if one clings to intellectual justifications for it, if
one is defending social patterns then one is defending social patterns."
Wim replied:
I agree. From the meaning "conservative" and "liberal" have to me,
conservatives seem to defend social patterns of value and liberals want to
liberate themselves (or others) from them. Liberation from social patterns
of value doesn't automatically imply promoting intellectual patterns of
value or promoting social progress. It can also mean degeneration. Platt is
right that if you choose the wrong methods, even promoting social progress
may cause degeneration and other undesirable results.)
dmb says:
OK. That's true')
You wrote 27 Jun 2004 11:33:04 -0600:
'Nor do you seem to appreciate my sense of humor....'
You introduced the 'gravy & meat' metaphor 12 Jun 2004 13:47:20 -0600 with:
'I'd like to point out the my insulting remarks are just gravy and the meat
has substance with or without it. The gravy also helps to explain how anyone
could connect the MOQ with Ayn Rand or Rush Limbaugh. This move could only
be made by a right-wing ignoramous.'
There it didn't refer to fun, but to insults.
You introduced the 'fun' of insulting Platt 13 Jun 2004 13:23:34 -0600 with:
'Beyond the murderous effects of such reactionary movements, there is also
the risk of destroying the intellectual level itself. This is what is under
attack by these various reactionary movements. And this is what is under
attack from Platt. He never met an intellectual or a liberal for whom he did
not have utter contempt. And neither did Hitler, who, like Platt, also liked
to paint. (Now I'm just having fun.)'
Now you connect it with 'the humor in a P.S. suggestion not to read the
post'.
I do see the humour in that. I don't mind having poured gravy of that kind
over me. It's way more mild than the gravy you pour over Platt. I even
appreciate that kind of humour and use it myself (usually accompanied with
an emoticon). This time I ignored it, because it was irrelevant to the point
I made about quite a different type of 'fun' and because I wanted to be
concise.
You end with:
'I think the problem stems from our fundamental disagreement about the
levels. Because you have re-defined them we are literally talking about two
different things and nothing I say will be of any value, no matter how
politely it is expressed.
And you know what else? Freedom of speech and freedom of expression go
together as part of the same right. We are allowed to be angry, outraged and
alarmed and we are all allowed to show it. Asking me to be nicer is like
asking me to feel differently about the issues. Except for jokes and such, I
mean what I say. And the gravy analogy suggests that its not essential to
the substance of the meal, but it also suggests that the meal is much
improved by adding it. I think you should try to see how this is so. You
could even check the archives to test the idea retroactively if you like. I
think you'll see that what looks to you like an unnecessary insult actually
functions as a pithy little summary of the larger point being made. It
serves to boil the essential point down to a sentence or phrase that is
endowed with meaning by all that has come before. Go ahead. See for
yourself. Its not even a rhetorical or literary devise I consciously adopted
or developed. Its just my style. That's how I talk. That's how I think. So
asking me to stop is like asking me to be somebody else. This offends me.'
The problem doesn't stem from our limited disagreement about the levels.
(Limited, given our agreement quoted above.) I can and do regularly
participate in discussions that presuppose your 'definitions'.
I do recognize the value in what you write and have expressed that
repeatedly.
You are free to express yourself with insults and to like a lot of gravy
with your meat. It is not me, but Horse who wants to ban that from this
list. I am free to be a vegetarian, to prefer less sauce and to experience
insulting as a lower quality type of discussion than discussion in which we
take each other seriously (interspersed with mild fun). No need to be
offended. I just hope that expressing my preferences is a better way of
improving the quality of the discussion on this list than excluding
contributors.
In the post that started this thread 14 Jun 2004 07:58:59 +0200 I wrote:
'Can you please take your "war between society and intellect" with Platt
off-list?'
That was meant to imply recognition of the value of your point of view
regarding the relation between society/intellect (even if I consider that
lower than that of my point of view; I am allowed to disagree, am I not?).
It was also meant to imply that you are free not to do so.
I made this explicit 20 Jun 2004 07:00:07 +0200 and explained that the
motivation of my request was:
'Going on with this discussion on-list doesn't really help others to
understand or develop the MoQ.'
Can you explain again how insulting other contributors helps them or others
to understand or develop the MoQ? Do your insults summarize the larger point
being made??? Then the larger point you make must be of the 'us versus them'
type and 'all means to beat them justified', not? Even if the interpretation
of the relation between the social and intellectual levels is more valuable
than mine and if wanting to exemplify that relation in your exchanges with
what you see as representatives of the social level is more valuable than my
distinction between form and content of discussions, you should (and do at
times) recognize the value of the social level and be able to see that
fighting (let alone beating) it denies that it is an essential part of sq
too.
Please also take note of my post of 27 Jun 2004 08:41:29 +0200 addressed to
Mark H. about fun at the expense of others:
'Fun at the expense of others can serve the purpose of emphasizing important
points.
It makes it very difficult for those made fun of to participate
constructively in the debate, however.
When it is done in front of an audience (and not -as you could have don in
this case- in an off-list e-mail to Paul Vogel) it also expresses
(inadvertently I assume) a 3rd level pattern of value: it serves to increase
your status at the expense of his in the eyes of others. If you are trying
to rationalize that behaviour, the 4th level quality of your reasoning
decreases, as you are then effectively justifying (maintaining) that 3rd
level pattern of value instead of motivating changing it to the better (as
4th level patterns of value should do in the face of relatively low quality
3rd level patterns of value).
In other words: even if fun at the expense of others serves good purposes,
the negative side-effects outweigh them.'
If asking you to stop insulting people is like asking you to be somebody
else, that is a pity. I suppose that you have grown up quite a bit further
than your son and have more abilities than to 'fight bad guys with words'.
If you can't help fighting with words, you can do so off-list and still be
the same. If you can't refrain from it here, oh well, go on. I'll leave it
to Horse then to deal with it.
With friendly greetings,
Wim
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 Jun 28 2004 - 07:31:54 BST