[MD] Reading Lessons

[Ian Glendinning]

DMB said
"[Ian] seems pretty mixed-up to me" and accused me of equivocation and
being dismissive again.

And equally I could say that's your failing, but I didn't, I made a
specific point, using specific words you yourself had used.

Clearly you don't agree with Marsha on "the reification issue" ... you
are making an issue of it. I said as far as I could see, you agree
what it (reification) is for practical purposes. You have your own
reasons / motivations to argue about it (both), and I would agree
Marsha is pushing it in the more nihilist direction, in terms of which
issues you both apply it to - for reasons which are at least in part a
reaction to your own pushing in other areas I reckon.

Contact sport - yes, clearly, philosophy and life, both. If you want
to brand my seeking better ways to play the game - choosing my
particular meta-contact-moves as standing on the sidelines, that is
your choice, not mine, notice. (Funny how you react against my
game-theory take on the whole process.)

Anyway, I am much more interested in significance than definitions.
Ian

On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 3:03 PM, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Ian said:
>
> ...DMB you are reifying the word reify, attaching yourself to your understanding of it and defending it aggressively .... against another person. My perspective .... you, DMB and Marsha actually agree on this subject - what reification is for practical purposes - where you differ is in attitiude to presumed motivations for arguing. IMHO natch.
>
>
> dmb says:
> Why do you equivocate on every single topic? Why do you constantly dismiss every distinction and difference as an attitude problem?
>
> And, no. I certainly do NOT agree with Marsha on the issue of reification. As with the debate on truth, your failure to see the difference is YOUR failure. The MOQ says it's value all the way down but Marsha is pushing an anti-intellectual nihilism, a self-defeating relativism. The difference is actually quite huge. For her, reification is not just a conceptual error. It is inherent to all conceptualization. I think that's not just wrong, it's logically impossible and it leads to absurd conclusions. Why would anyone need "motivations" for disputing this foolish nihilism? Who doesn't want to defeat a bad idea and assert a better one? If that counts as aggression, then I guess philosophy is a contact sport. And I guess your role is to stand on the sidelines and tell the players not to play? To tell the players they're all on the same team? Seems pretty mixed-up to me.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
>