[Hermit 1]
[Walpurgis 2]
Hermit 3]
[hr]
[Walpurgis 2] <Kharin> Currently waiting for pomo discussion to have the decency to end its life as soon as possible.
[Hermit 1] I was hoping that not responding to it would be a hint for it to commit suicide.
[Walpurgis 2] Could this be thought rather pompus of you both?
[Hermit 3] I'm sure it could be. Even pompous, perhaps. Most things "could" be interpreted in any way you like. Some interpretations are possibly more valid than others. That is a major part of what post-modern thinking is about. The participants in this discourse were having a discussion amongst themselves, not intended for publication, where everyone involved was literate and intelligent and well aware of the competencies, capabilities and positions of the others. I elected to do the work of editing and formatting the discussion and posting it here, as I thought that it might be useful to others. If you consider this to be pompous, that is simply your perception. Were you to share your opinion, it might, to thinking people, come across as unwarranted arrogance. Were you attempting to share your opinion?
[Walpurgis 2] Both of you make comments that are usually interesting (aside from the occasional sneers)
[Hermit 3] Well thank-you for your opinion. I'm sure that we will value it appropriately. Consider before discounting "sneers", that most long-term Virians are not in the habit of "sneering" except with reason - and that we are quite willing to share our reasons. A sneer can be as effective, less insulting and waste much less time than a re-exposition of what has already been done to death. Besides, think how boring the world would be - and how little incentive there would be to learn - if nobody sneered when there was reason too.
[Walpurgis 2] but there are some readers who want to discuss these issues and do not have the grasp on them that you both claim to have. If you do not like the discussion, simply delete mail entitled "postmodernism". (And, if you do not like what list member XYZ has to say, delete mail from "XYZ".)
[Hermit 3] I assure you that I do not delete that or those which or whom I do not like or those I do not agree with. I read all submissions to the CoV, and attempt to respond to them when I have the time, the ability and the inclination. Sometimes I attempt this even when I don’t really have the inclination. That way, I and other Virians learn from the discussions and the mail-list does not become a platform for the distribution of unreasoned positions or a "me too" forum. The downside is that this takes time - sometimes a great deal of time. And the Virians competent to do this and prepared to take that time are few and tend to be busy people. Certainly I am. When the list is deluged, it is difficult to respond to it all. When the flood consists of a barrage of single-perspective articles, not written for the CoV, undoubtedly at the wrong level for most of our members and dealing with a non-trivial subject that has been repeatedly discussed in the past, it becomes more than a little annoying to have to deal
with it. Discussion is fine. The posting of articles to support or oppose a viewpoint is also fine. A battery of unsupported monoperspective articles (especially without sources), which drowns out discussion, is less so.
[Hermit 3] As previously mentioned (ad nauseam), the conflict between the subjective and objective stances in all their nuanced variations is indeed a complex issue which requires a great deal of study, reading and thought to get a handle on it and form a reasoned opinion. Moreover, it has been addressed repeatedly on the list, and it would, as always, probably be beneficial to the members to reread the archives before posting.
[Hermit 3] The hope was that not objecting to the articles on the board would result in a reduction of the volume due to the lack of opposition. This unfortunately, has not occurred.
[Walpurgis 2] <Lucifer> How is Joe being dishonest?
[Hermit 1] Joe is citing one side of a story that he knows is multifaceted, to people whom he knows cannot follow the articulations which he is choosing, and relying on authority rather than persuasion to obtain their consent to his assertions.
[Walpurgis 2] This kind of brow-beating…
[Hermit 3] Actually, if you imagine that Joe Dees (a scholar, a friend and usually a gentleman) can be “browbeaten” – and particularly by such a mild comment, then you obviously don’t know him and haven’t even read much in the archives.
[Hermit 3] So your premise being faulty, what does this say about your conclusions?
[Walpurgis 2] …seems to be one of the main problems I've isolated with this group, or at least some members.
[Hermit 3] Exactly who was saying what about pomposity? Methinks you flatter yourself.
[Walpurgis 2] Is this group one which values mutual learning/dialogue or winning arguments?
[Hermit 3]We value learning and dialog. An important component of that process is making correct and persuasive arguments. If you imagine that the original article or the following flood was an argument then you need to watch more Monty Python. “An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.” Monty Python's Argument Clinic (http://www.duke.edu/~pms5/humor/argument.html).
[Walpurgis 2] All in all though, this dialogue was very interesting, thanks for posting.
[Hermit 3] I rather thought so to. Or why it got posted despite the fact that I felt that posting it was, in a sense, counterproductive. Confirmed in the time that this response has taken <grin>.
Hermit
---- This message was posted by Hermit to the Virus 2002 board on Church of Virus BBS. <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=51;action=display;threadid=25797>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Sep 22 2002 - 05:06:16 MDT