[MD] For Bo

[Ian Glendinning]

Hi SA ... Inserted at two key points lower down ... after your long
paragraph ...

On 8/22/08, Heather Perella <spiritualadirondack at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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.

[IG] OK SA, I see what you're getting at. No, I'm never afraid to
seek, and point out disagreement ... that is the analytical part of
the process, the critical analysis, to find out what the real
disagreements are. Apart from the relevance / value / importance of
the specific disagreements to the point at hand, of course it is not
always necessary to point every disagreement for the sake of it. But
understanding the actual disagreement is part of finding out any
valuable "middle-ground" or any starting points on which new agreement
can be constructed.

BUT finding and stating real disagreement with (criticising) someone's
position, and attacking (criticising) the person with whom you are
disagreeing, are a million miles apart.

You are quite right, that when we are looking at our difficult
subjects where individual perceptions and psychology are part of the
real world being understood, and the language is full of rhetoric and
history, there is no simple test of "negative personal accusations".
This just means we (and our moderator) have to be extra careful, and
use respect and trust each other's integrity. One sure sign of
breakdown in trust between those arguing is when one person's point
includes statements (assertions rather than questions) about the
"motive" or "character" of the other party .... but of course so many
questions are really rhetorical statements (and we all like a bit of
fun too).

"No Ad Hominem" is just about the only rule of MoQ Discuss (for good
reason), but it still requires skill, judgement, trust and vigilant
will to apply it.

Even if I was actually arguing with Mr Hitler, in the flesh or by
e-mail, I would be duty bound to bite my tongue and avoid criticising
him, and focus on criticising his arguments. Hard, but essential ...

>
> 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.

[IG] Agreed, the disagreement - the critical analysis of the arguments
- must never be avoided, except for pragmatic exceptions (as noted
already). A vacuous pat on the back is worthless, not any kind of real
agreement, though we should not totally dismiss the encouragement
value of positive (me too) feedback entirely. The point is really
about remembering to disagree with the arguments, not with the person.
If you wanna disagree with a person - ie when you've given up on real
argument - look 'em in the eye, over a dueling pistol (or a pint, or a
cuddle, or a wrestling lock - human to human) - or if that fails, via
a mutually trusted mediator, but not by trading e-mail rhetoric.

Regards Ian.