[MD] Keep on duckin'

[MarshaV]

Whining again?   

I have no interesting in defending myself.  Why don't find a way to put together a post that inspires some discussion you find important?  



On May 15, 2011, at 10:50 AM, david buchanan wrote:

> 
> 
> Marsha said to dmb:
> Didn't you learn your lesson with demanding the standard seven-word dictionary definition for 'reify'?   Then suddenly on February 19th, you finally acknowledge a broader meaning.
> 
> 
> dmb says:
> No.
> 
> Sadly, you misuse and misconstrue words so badly that your position can be defeated by simply quoting the dictionary.
> 
> I cited the dictionary to show you that you do not understand what "reification" means, to show that you're misusing the term. That is also why I quoted the dictionary definitions of "static" and "dynamic". I'm drawing your attention to the basic meaning of these terms because you obviously don't understand what they mean. It's like you never saw a dictionary in your life. It's like you don't even understand the definition of "definition". Your use of terms constitutes a criminal abuse of the english language and of course nonsense is the inevitable result. Your sentences make no sense because you don't care what words and concepts actually mean to those who use them.
> 
> One cannot have a conversation with another unless there is a willingness to really listen. And the willingness to listen depends on a willingness to change one's mind, a willingness to be persuaded by words, by reasons and by evidence. But you're constantly making a hair-brainded case against exactly that. Your response is to always sidestep the meaning and the substance of the issue and retreat into some solipsistic world where you have your own definitions of every term in question. It's sad to watch, really. It must be a lonely place. 
> 
> Haven't you ever noticed that the word "definition" comes from the root word "finite". That means it has limits. They have plenty of flexibility, especially in the hands of an artist, but the meaning of a word in not infinite. At a certain point, one's usage will violate the boundaries of meaning. Using "static" to mean "ever-changing" would be a clear example pushing a meaning beyond its breaking point. In fact, "ever-changing" is a pretty good description of the very opposite term. "Ever-chainging" is almost exactly what "static" does NOT mean. You usage destroys the meaning of word. It's simple the wrong idea. That's also the case with the way you use "reification". For you, "reification" is not a particular kind of conceptual error, it's an inherent feature of the conceptualization process. What a mess! On top of the sheer hackery and misuse of terms, you also bring an attitude that says static patterns are a prison and concepts are inherently erroneous. No wonder you're 
> never persuaded by evidence or reason! You're like the Ronald Reagan of philosophy. "Coherent thinking isn't the solution, it's the problem. We've gotta get philosophers off our backs and deregulate the dictionaries."
> 
> But these mistakes have already been explained to you many times by many different posters. As we all know by now. the sun will come up tomorrow and, once again, the point will be lost on Marsha.
> 
>  		 	   		  
> 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



___