[MD] Trust in Philosophy

[Ian Glendinning]

Hi John, if I've not been dialoging a lot with you it's probably cos
I've not been dialoging a lot in recent months on MD generally, or
only sporadically.

The troll incident ... I do recall clarifying the meaning when someone
asked, but I don't think I had you in mind when I did. I did quip that
you might actually be the troll someone else accused you of being, and
that I had some doubts around your theism. Still do, but then some of
my best friends are theists of some sort.

If I missed a request for explanation, I missed it, sorry .... but I
do dip in and out of threads and activity on here ... life's too short
etc.

Ian


On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 5:05 PM, John Carl <ridgecoyote at gmail.com> wrote:
> Ian,
>
> Perhaps I have (again) construed hastily.  But when I stopped receiving any
> of your words in my in box, then I assumed you did this on purpose.  If you
> don't trust me with your words, then as far as this particular medium goes,
> you don't trust me at all.
>
> I might not have construed it this way,seeking perhaps a technical answer
> (differing "Semantics"? heh-heh) but the absence of your dialogue in my life
> followed close on the heels of your accusation that I was some kind of
> troll.  And you went to pretty decent lengths to explain what exactly you
> thought a "troll" was, in internet terms and it didn't sound like any sort
> of entity to elicit fondness.  I did request an explanation of some kind of
> what you were talking about, the basis of your aspersions.  But I never got
> any.  Where can one go in such a case?  If you don't want to talk to me, it
> really seems irrelevant, pragmatically speaking, whether the reason is
> distrust, dislike or boredom.  They all instantiate about the same mate -
> nothingness has a similar aspect no matter what angle you view it from.
>
> Maybe that's why some people are so fond of it.  It's got a certain
> predictability to it, you must admit.
>
>
>> > Misunderstanding motives is the biggest risk ... as a minimum people
>> > > accuse each other of not really trying to debate / agree, or worse.
>> > > (And human psychology is ALL about interpreting the motives of
>> > > others.)
>> > >
>>
>
> "Misunderstanding" is not the big bugaboo that everybody makes it out to
> be.  So we misunderstand each other?  so what?  That's just a given in
> communication.  If we care, we can ask for clarification.  Further
> interpretation is always possible, always needed and always welcome.  Life
> is  no more than an infinite process of furthur interpretation.
>
>
>
>
>> > > Anyway, me not trust you John ?
>> > > That's a bit strong surely - I was wary of one of your motives in one
>> > > exchange - but I don't feel like I don't trust you.
>> > >
>
>
> Ah well. Do you feel in any way that you'd prefer not to dialogue with me at
> all?  Because that is what I assumed and if thats not the case, I'm sorta
> curious as to how this came about in the first place.  Horse has disappeared
> from my in box as well.  Every once in a while, as with you, I see something
> he said in a quote somebody else posts,  but never anything that shows up in
> the MoQueue.
>
> I would be relieved if it were merely some technical glitch, because I have
> felt sorta bad about.  I'm actually quite fond of your words, Ian.  And
> horse's too, as well.
>
> I don't need to be reminded as often as I am, that I'm not to everyone's
> taste, so I certainly won't press it beyond this.
>
> Thanks for the chance to get some things off my chest.  I certainly agree
> with you (as usual) on human psychology and the interpretation of motives.
>
> Shout out to Matt - Hey Matt, the social dynamics of philosophy certainly
> ARE fascinating.
>
> John
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>