[MD] The whole yin yang thing

[John Carl]

Greetings Marsha,

I've been pondering a few things, and would like to take this step by step,
upon due reflection.

On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 12:35 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:

>
> On Aug 28, 2010, at 3:21 PM, John Carl wrote:
>
> > Ok, Marsha,  I have no idea how to proceed in a dialogue which always
> ends
> > in the same formulation.
> > Neither do I have a clue how to proceed when rationality is rejected.
>
> Not rejected, but understood to be flawed.
>

John:

I agree. But ask what does that look like exactly?  How do we treat ideas or
concepts in a " flawed but non-rejected" way?

Let me thrust my conjectures upon you, and see if I can wheedle some
agreement.

First, we both agree that rationality is not absolute.  AND it doesn't get
the last word, i.e. if something seems completely rationally plausible, but
doesn't "feel' right, then we look deeper.    We examine the underlying
issues that cause the bad feelings. But we can't just stop with "it feels
wrong"  because relying upon feelings and intuitions alone would be as
foolish as relying upon logic and rationality alone, correct?  Neither can
be complete in themselves.  They must be in accord.  They must dance
together and not step on each other's toes.  Do you not agree?



>
> > My instincts, intuition and all just seem to whisper to me, "this
> > conversation isn't going anywhere."
>
> We agree.
>
>

John:

Yes but my quest for understanding makes me wonder why.  It drives me deeper
into more questions.  More digging.  Intellectual probing is utterly
instinctual and a self-driving force.  I can certainly stop pestering with
questions, but I can't stop (or don't wanna) asking why in my own mind.

And that's a good thing.

In this case, I'm especially glad that you've irritated me into pondering.
So thanks, sincerely.  And here's a place where we did both rely upon
instinct's whispers, and we did both agree, and we both were wrong!  Or at
least our instincts were.  This conversation is going somewhere.






>
> > My instincts tell me that you are being over-defensive, and any guess I
> > publish as to why, gets immediately shot down by you as false projection
> on
> > my part.
>
> That would depend if you made a false projection.
>


John:

Yes, this was a misunderstanding on my part.  I was puzzled why you objected
to me making projections - but you were objecting to me making false
projections,  wrong projections.  You probably figured that I was kinda
obtuse for not getting that, and I was.  I get awful literal in logical
argumentation.  If you leave a word out, don't assume I'll guess what it
is.  But I will figure it out in the end.


> You post "victory" and "winning an argument" as  very important to you and
> thus I guess I'll just concede that your superior reasoning (or is it
> non-reasoning?

You could never be a loser in my eyes.
>
>
John:  Hah!  That's easy to say when you've never seen me!  But I'll take it
as a compliment anyway, Marsha.  And yeah, I know.



>
> > I admit I'm confused) goes right over my head, and I'll take
> > your word for it that the last word to any discussion, speculation or
> query
> > is not this, not that.
> >
> > You win!
>
> No me to win.
>
> >
> > Yay Marsha!
>
> Boo Marsha if seems the winner.
>
>
John:  Well then, I was right Yay Marsha.  And Yay John for being right.
Dancing is a game with TWO winners, ya know.

Watch out for the twirl I'm about to give you, It's a doozy.