[MD] For Bo

[Ian Glendinning]

Hi SA, must have missed it ... interesting question.

Of course I value disagreement over matters of substance, it's an
opportunity to find new agreement ... and "keep the dialogue going"
whilst we do so. I can't believe I've ever said anything like "and
we'll all agree" ... 'cos I certainly don't believe that ... that
would be like "agreeing to disagree", which is only ever a temporary
"holiday" in pragmatic terms.

There are certain kinds of disagreement that I generally avoid /
object to, particularly by e-mail, better over a beer or a walk in the
woods. Two main kinds ....

(1) Negative accusations over the integrity, motives and personal
character of your interlocutor. These are ad hominem attacks - a
no-no. Should be moderated.

(2) Debates that start from political ideological premises. Which I
tend to avoid rather than object too, just a matter of preference ...
not enough time in the world in my mind to progress these beyond
sloganizing, slanging-matches, unless the intelocutor shows intent to
drop lay the ideological points aside from the argument.

Basically, it's a question of motive SA. My motive in argumentation is
to find something, anything, worth agreeing, adding value to the
world, not to "avoid" argument or explanation. I avoid (some)
arguments that look unlikley to add any value, for practical reasons
of bandwidth and sanity.

As I have said before Mary Parker-Follett, would be my archetype, in
my position on the subject of disagreement and argumentation. Hope
that helps. What was the context of your original question ?
Ian

On 8/22/08, Heather Perella <spiritualadirondack at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Ian,
>
>     I recently had a question for you, but heard no response.  Don't know if you saw it or not.  I asked you (since your a proponent of a certain middle way) if you value disagreement, or if it goes against your grain?  I know you like to say stuff like 'dialog long enough and we'll find we all agree', and seem to be against people disagreeing with each other on this forum.  Curious.
>
>
> SA
>
>
> --- On Fri, 8/22/08, Ian Glendinning <ian.glendinning at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > From: Ian Glendinning <ian.glendinning at gmail.com>
> > Subject: Re: [MD] For Bo
> > To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> > Date: Friday, August 22, 2008, 5:02 AM
> > Actually, Ron, SA,
> >
> > Godel's argument concerns any formal system of logic
> > (not just
> > mathematics per se) ... but it doesn't change your
> > point, since the
> > argument was part of the debate about whether mathematics
> > and logic
> > resolve to the same thing.
> >
> > My son's recent dissertation was specifically on the
> > subject of
> > Godel's incompleteness and/or inconsistency in relation
> > to systems of
> > moral philosophy. Let me see if I can dig you out a copy
> > ...
> >
> > Ian
> >
> > On 8/22/08, Ron Kulp <RKulp at ebwalshinc.com> wrote:
> > > Ron:
> > > The fallacy, SA, is using a mathematical theorem to
> > support
> > > a metaphysical understanding. It supposes a cap on
> > knowledge
> > > and intellect when it is only a rarely used and one of
> > many,
> > > methods of reasoning.
> > >
> > >
> > > Moq_Discuss mailing list
> > > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> > >
> > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> > > Archives:
> > >
> > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> > > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
> > >
> > Moq_Discuss mailing list
> > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> > Archives:
> > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>
>
>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>