[MD] Philosophy and Abstraction

[Matt Kundert]

Well, that is the purpose of recontextualization.  When I first learned 
about the nature of rhetoric, about what it meant for rhetoric to be 
truly all the way down (from Rorty), I got very caught up in the idea 
of always wading out onto ground you and not someone else has 
prepared.  That's why Dave has for years said I've been indirect: 
because I used always to say variations of, "if I let you have these 
terms, I lose, so here are some new terms...."  The problem, as 
Dave notes with the cringe in his response in this thread, is that he 
feels the deck is stacked my way when I say stuff.  Naturally, of 
course, just as it is for him.

However, Dave has stated a very interesting attempt at a neutral 
ground with which we might approach each other.  And I'd like to 
take it up (when I have the time, which is not at this moment).

> From: valkyr at att.net
> Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 02:50:18 -0500
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Subject: Re: [MD] Philosophy and Abstraction
> 
> 
> Matt,
> 
> Caution:  If you let dmb frame the issue "Let me put it this way", he just might try to screw you with it.   
> 
> 
> Marsha