[MD] Trust in Philosophy

[david buchanan]

 ?? Marsha said to Dave:
> As I see it I'm only asking you to say what you mean.   I'm telling you 
> that I don't know what you mean ...  and I'm asking you to say what 
> you mean in your own words.   I really don't see how the 
> reasonableness of that request can be denied. I can speak english, I 
> know the language of philosophy to some extent.  I really don't see 
> why it should be a problem for you to make your ideas clear to me.  
> You're angry because I'm asking you to say what you mean, because 
> I'm asking you to define the terms you use?  Isn't that just the most 
> basic demand placed on anyone who wishes to communicate about 
> anything?  I think so. And your apparently refusal is more than a little 
> suspicious. I mean, it's hard to believe that you're really trying.


Matt replied:

Can I just say that if I had marked the above paragraph "DMB said to Matt:" people wouldn't have thought twice?  That Dave has been saying the same thing to me for years now?

dmb says:
Not that it matters, but that paragraph is what dmb said to Matt. Marsha then repeated it back at me and called it bullying. I think it's just a reasonable thing to request. If that's counts as bullying, I sure wish I'd grown up in your neighborhood. 

Matt said:

.. The devolution of trust between participants seems to me to be a regular pattern in the course of a participant's stay at the MD.  And trust is terribly difficult to repair.

dmb says:
That's certainly true. But trust and distrust can be justly earned. It's not just a matter of good manners or a generous spirit. It some cases it really would be foolish to extend trust, thus Arlo's recent use of Charlie Brown and Lucy to depict the situation between myself and Marsha. As every Peanuts reader knows, Charlie foolishly trusts her and he pays for it every time. 



Matt said:
... Dave was always consistent: I never answered him directly.  I don't think this is true, but Dave was at least consistent in his perception of the situation. ... I _haven't_ had success at explaining myself, because here success is defined by Dave's ability to understand (which is merely convenient for his rhetorical case). ... Dave does not resist much in implying that it is rather I who shares most of the responsibility. 

dmb says:
My ability to understand what you're saying certainly would define successful communication. I really don't understand why anybody would take this as some kind of trick or why you think I'm being insincere. If I'm asking you what you mean by "strong poet" or any other term you're using, why not just tell me?  What's the big deal? See, this is the beauty of conversation. We can not ask books or essays what they mean. Idea aren't just laid out, they're also in play. 


Anyway, the reason that paragraph sounds like something I'd say to you is because I did say that to you. Do you have any particular reason for doubting the sincerity of that plea? Frankly, your suspicion doesn't even make sense to me. I'm not genuinely frustrated over a reasonable request, then what am I doing? What would be the point or purpose of pretending to want clarity? I honestly don't get it.