[MD] Interpretive Legitimacy

[Ian Glendinning]

Hi Arlo,

I can assure you I am, as ever, looking for constructive progressive
possibilities, and I have to say I am relieved by your response.

Yes, I read what you (anyone) writes - but with the rhetoric and irony
on top of (admitted, but oft re-quoted) sarcasm on top of opinions of
the author's original intent, you appreciate not ever nuance of intent
is clear unless you can follow the entire dialogue - which I rarely
can.

The "non-humans in the S/I level" question - I have to say was not at
the forefront of what I was reading - looks like another change of
subject. I am specific / selective on what I am actually commenting on
by the snips below. When I'm commenting on that I'll let you know. I
may be back.

And by the way I totally agree with your aim of separating
interpretation of individual understanding of the MoQ from
interpretation of the author's intent in the actual text (in a sense I
no longer really concern myself with the latter - that's history and
my aims are forward - but I can understand the scholarly interest).
The kind of dishonesty on which Bo ultimately impaled himself, but
he's not alone there on either side of the argument. Calling me
"wishy-washy" (personally) doesn't help mate, but your clarification
has helped. Thanks. Faith restored.

Ian

On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 5:12 PM, Arlo Bensinger <ajb102 at psu.edu> wrote:
> [Ian]
> No-one not even Mary (or Ron or Marsha or John, or whoever) is arguing for
> total subjectivism.
>
> [Arlo]
> Of course not, I think this has been part of my point, ...