From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Fri Nov 14 2003 - 14:45:08 GMT
Matt:
Matt complains:
> I'm sorry to everyone who wants me to continue on in my explanation of
> the redescription of the subject/object polarity into intersubjective
> agreement. I thought my most recent explication was bordering on pretty
> good, I'm quite happy with it, but Platt just doesn't seem to get it.
> Which is fine, but it doesn't really make me want to continue in trying
> to explain it to Platt when I doubt the fact that he will ever get it.
> If somebody else wants to pick up the conversation, I'd be willing to
> answer other people's questions and interjections, but I don't see the
> point with Platt. I've been around the pole so many times with this one
> person, that I just don't see the point.
The fact that you've been "around the pole" many times not only with me
but with DMB and Paul would suggest to a reasonable person that your
ability to communicate leaves something to be desired. To blame the
victim of your prose for lack of understanding is to reverse the
responsibility from writer to reader.
One way to assure mutual understanding is to use words as commonly
defined instead of insisting on your own definitions. Case in point:
Matt
> And no, as I said later, direct sensation does not provide
> justification. "Justification" has to do with reasoning, not showing.
You definition of "justification" is not the common one: From Merriam-
Webster:
1 a : to prove or SHOW to be just, right, or reasonable (emphasis
added)
Another case in point of eliciting confusion:
Matt
> No justification of truth by direct sensation--only change in belief.
Without explaining the difference as you see it between "truth" and
"true belief," this reader is left wondering what you mean in making
this distinction.
A final case in point:
Matt
>Your
> use of "perceptions" is confusing because I doubt you are using it the
> way I'm using it, so I'm not sure what page you are on.
Your confusion at my meaning of "direct perceptions" illustrates why
it's important for a writer to chose his words carefully so as keep
confusion by a reader to a minimum and to anticipate possible
misinterpretations. In this case, mea culpa.
Matt's conclusion:
>Truth will always be a muddle.
Tell that to the mother and father who lost a son in battle. Or, tell
that to your pharmacist next time she fills a prescription for you.
Anyway, the statement is contradictory on its face. You cannot appeal
to reason in matters of justification as you do above, then turn around
and deny reason when you make a self-contradictory statement. It's this
sort of flip-flopping that puzzles those who question your views.
Platt
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 : Fri Nov 14 2003 - 14:43:49 GMT