[MD] Disagreement

[Heather Perella]

> [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.

SA:  Of course, if somebody tries repeatedly to connect with somebody and they ignore or can't respond back, and they continue to tout their same repeated message and play dumb when somebody or many people keep disagreeing with them, that's a tough situation.  For instance, Ham, after all this time, is finally putting into words that the moq is not a place for his thesis.  He can tout his thesis, that's fine, but to be repeatedly amazed, on his part, that people don't agree with him; well for one, he doesn't understand what he's saying at times it seems, so, how can anybody else.  He applauded Ron for helping him make logical sense of his own thesis in which helped Ham understand his own thesis.  Or when he says he's not for people coming to conclusions on their own, yet, doesn't find that anti-democratic, and I asked for him to explain himself and he doesn't, I find he's trojan horsing something into this culture or at least trying to.  
      The personal philosophy part of this "disagreement" issue is I think miles closer than you might think.  The ad hominem attacks can't be helped at times due to perspective.  I touch upon this further in an intellectual way below.

Ian: 
> 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".

SA:  Exactly.  The moq understands "perceptions and psychology" are a part of reality.  However unenlightened somebody is, reality is based on their own perceptions and psychology.  This is the basis of an anti-absolutism in the moq.  This is the basis of anti-essentialism and anti-tyranny.  Somebody's reality, no matter how skewed it might seem to somebody else, is a reality and if allowed to spread to many people, then many people will find that to be reality and with less and less disagreers of such a reality, soon, it is thought to be more and more THE reality.  How many times have people brought up that Bo is confusing this forum?  Many and for good reasons.  
     Who or what is present to disagree?  So what philosophy are we agreeing to or allowing?  These are moral questions.      

Ian:
> 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).

SA:  I don't see any disagreements with your two points here.  Your saying questions are good, then your saying questions are not good.  Miles closer than maybe you think?  For as I began to point out above, how are ad hominem attacks understood in an moq context?  For reality, by the moq, is understood to be very personal, so, we provide very personal occurrences in our lives, not for just social fun but to show reality.  Reality is not just thinking, it is also washing the dishes.  I can see name calling as maybe getting a bit negative, but in what context?  If somebody is touting a way that doesn't allow others to think for themselves, then aren't they espousing tyranny?  That's not ad hominem.   

Ian: 
> "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.

SA:  Yes it does.  Maybe it is good that we're discussing what Ad Hominem is, for it is argued readily on this forum as to what an ad hominem attack really is.

Ian: 
> 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 ...

SA:  Are not we our words too?  I mean if you say, "Hitler your slick hair is terrible and you really ought to stop invading Poland."  The former comment is not an intellectual support or argument for Hitler to stop invading Poland and it would probably be closer to an ad hominem attack.  But I'm finding very fine lines, maybe more than is given credit here, as to what is ad hominem or not.



> > SA previously:  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.

SA:  I think this is what we are trying to distinguish.  I find the person to be closer to their arguments than maybe you do, but we'll see.


evening,
SA