[MD] Philosophy and Abstraction

[MarshaV]

Matt,

By all means, and I wish you both the best of luck at finding 
an agreeable means of discussing your interests.


Marsha  



On Nov 30, 2010, at 1:29 PM, Matt Kundert wrote:

> 
> 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 



 
___