[MD] Reading Lessons

[Ian Glendinning]

> dmb says:
> First you say that Marsha and I actually agree and then you say that I clearly don't agree with Marsha. That's equivocation.

[IG] If I had said that you'd have a point. But I didn't.

Truth matters greatly, but splitting hairs over philosophical
definitions and usage of the word is not *necessarily* productive once
we listened to and understood each other's usages in different
contexts. (As you yourself have pointed out, and I've agreed with you,
fundamental objective watertight analytic definitions of truth, can be
trivially low value when arrived at.)

Unless there is a point you are actually trying to make (for James
against Rorty say) whose significance we are still missing. (Which I
believe is why the conversation is continuing, with considerable
effort by several people.)

And far from being dismissive - in my experience - attitudes and
motives (and interpretations thereof) are far more significant to
people's actions in the world than linguistic definitions of what they
*say* they mean / do / mean-to-do. I'm raising what I sincerely
believe to be the more significant issues - you're free to ignore me,
but not free to insult me. That right Horse ;-) ?

Sadly, the irony, is that there is a conversation that I would very
much like you and I to have, but there is a rut we need to escape from
before the effort will have any value. (I take my share of the blame
for that.) Thanks for the exchange.

Ian