[MD] For Bo

[Heather Perella]

Ian:
> 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.

SA:  Ok.  About the "and we'll all agree", I was trying to think back without anything specific to quote.  That's why I was asking you this question.  This question is the context.  I'll explain further, further on down the post.

Ian: 
> 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.

SA:  This was partly why I brought this question up to you.  This seems to be "your thing", your focus.  I'm not narrowing this down to you only focus on this kind of stuff, but this is something you like to discuss "middle way" and all.  This is good.  This is why I brought (partly) the question up to you for how does one identify "negative accusations... (to ones) personal character" amidst a nonseparation of philosophy and who one is.  You see, I'm identifying philosophy as way of life, and I don't stand outside of this way of life that I live.  I can see how sometimes the lines blur.  For instance, Ham will say he's doing metaphysics and others aren't (note his recent post:  "Arlo, you don't like metaphysics, any more than does your illustrious author.  However, since my thesis is founded on metaphysical concepts, to answer your question I'm going to have to speak in terms that are foreign to you.").  The implication is very clear, correct?  He's
 said this in the past.  Now, am I getting too personal when I say Ham's being deceptive here?  Or how when some bring up essentialist ways or absolutisms, and they admit they are, and then I go on to say their being undemocratic or even dictorial?  In the past when I compared somebody to Hitler, I guess that was too far on my part ONLY if what Hitler did is recognized or thought of when "Hitler's" name comes up.  In the past I was more focused on Hitler's persona of a dictator and I do think that if a philosophy/a way of life proposes absolutism or essentialism the impact of these ways into the lives of people, down through the social level would be a catastrophe.  The philosophy of western civilization (the Plato kind, though not an expert on western philosophy, but not Amish, Quaker, or others of course), China's (maybe the Confucian kind, there again, not sure where the absolutism and empirically rooted philosophy will be found here, though
 definitely not Daoist and no Buddhist society has ever waged war), and etc..., these philosophies, these ways of life, obviously thought out, were warlike.  Wasn't Alexander the Great a student of Aristotle?  We're not only dealing with ideas here, but we are also dealing with ideas that can mean something and do something.  For instance, did Darwin really think his ideas of natural selection would lead into social selection in the Third Reich?  I don't know, obviously he didn't foresee a Third Reich, but what about human engineered social selection?  A humble philosophy is needed and I find the moq to be such a philosophy.  Do you see what I mean?  Yet, also, as I point out, a philosophy is a way of life, I believe, and thus is completely with the person advocating any particular philosophy, so, at times it may seem a personal attack is happening, but maybe not, for ideas can be experienced to be possessed by a person so much that once the idea is
 attacked the person feels as if they are being attacked too. 

Ian:
> (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.

SA:  Yeah.  Trying to outwit somebody that is already entrenched in a certain political way is futile.


Ian: 
> 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.

SA:  Yes, but what about pointing out were you disagree?  We can point out what we value, but if we don't point at were we disagree, wouldn't we be giving support to the whole philosophy that somebody is espousing for the other person walks away with only a pat on the back and a good job, but with no intellectual criticism given to them, then they think everything they are saying is good.  
      I'm just (I know DM doesn't like that word but I find it appropiate at times to place emphasis) curious.
      The context was a sudden-like question to you, for it seems at times people don't want to show their disagreement, but of course this might also be due to me providing a hyper amount of disagreement to certain posters in this forum, doesn't seem hyper to me, but I might be blind to how this compares or presents itself to other people.  So, I was thinking about some who post here, the ones I've most recently shed my disagreements with here on this forum due to what I find to be their repeated rigid values (bringing up a concept that Ron recently dug out of Pirsigs' terminology) and their repeated snubbing of others without any or lack of intellectual patterns to support their position on certain issues.  I've quoted their comments and given commentary on their words.  So have others here in this forum.  I was then beginning to think about you, for you come off as somebody that puts a lot of effort into avoiding to even say you disagree with
 somebody, and I was beginning to wonder if you're afraid to disagree with somebody, are sensitive to disagreement, and/or have something else going on with this stance of yours.  I then began to think this is the kind of discussion this forum could use, for, this seems to be something that rises up in this forum from time to time and a conscious discussion on this occurrence would be good.

Ian: 
> 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?

SA:  I may have looked her up before, but I'll have to do that again.  This seems to definitely be your arena of thought so I thought I'd step in for awhile and see what's happening.


as the mist melts away in the morning sun,
the smoke disappears into the sky,
this quiet is where these go,
SA