MIT Love 'em or Hate 'em

Thank you, Jetter.

Yes, you are right - he did not understand. But not because he isn't intelligent - actually I find listening to his mind quite fun and stimilating (!). Rather, its because he sees reality through a prism. A good prism - I love science and am very thankful that we have evolved to live so securely through the power over matter - but the value of that prism should never be used recklessly (the environment and non-human life) or aggressively through the mind's absorption with its power over things(science yelling down the next possible paradigm of perception, even though their own evolutionary evidence says that it is bound to happen).

Yes, I am trying to learn how to talk better and need to learn more. I think I am getting better, but please remind me when I get self-indulgent and talk into my own mirror rather than to another person. I try to bring many different threads together to see an issue from multiple views at once, and this can make the "normal" way of thinking stop sometimes. But sometimes it is not the mind's comprehensive intelligence or vocabulary that is an obstacle, but the sight itself. Knowledge should always seek to point beyond itself. Sometimes we have to squint at first until the thinking mind becomes accustomed to what is seen.

Also, I try to add something that will catalyze a dialogue along, or make someone play fair, usually through Socratic devices that probe but do not threaten. Again, I have not always been this way; if you look at some of my older threads I could get in there and yell with the best of them! I've learned since then, and many people here have helped me with this (have been my teachers...).

Basically, smart people like you and detlof and krusty and gregm and all the others are exciting to me - in the end, regardless of the ideas, it is about meeting. Things can be discovered ("whenever two or more gather in its name...").

Maxgain, haven't read 'ol Jacques in many moons. Even gave me a headache back then to be honest. Literary deconstruction says some things, but uses too many words to say that words have no foundation, then doesn't offer ideas on the way ahead. Just more post modern existential disassociation. That horse has been beaten dead by now (the poor thing). I am not talking just about deconstruction of form - literary, semiotics, etc. - but its reintegration; reducing into parts to learn from that, putting it back together to learn from that, stepping beyond the need to do either to see what is. I don't think Derrida and his brethren were much concerned with the last two.

Don't read philosophy anymore. Working on watching; working on "how" to stop working on watching...

Talking and thinking is fun though. And, like I said, makes great widgets, and helps me find my way to the forum.

Detlof, I couldn't agree more. Indeed the only time Uncle "simulated" talk was in suggesting that a CAT + a Defy make a good combo. But even then, it was only to tell Maxgain he should NOT like his present system :)
Oh well

Asa: Without meaning to be (perhaps overly) insulting - I want to like it when you come onto a thread, but find I often dread the prospect, to be perfectly honest. I don't think I would have ever actually ventured to say this to you otherwise, though, but for the fact that your first paragraph above in your last response to Maxgain puts the reasons why I feel this way in terms much more trenchant then I could ever hope to do myself.

So, that must mean that I really do consider you to be an excellent thinker - but also consider your succinct and penetrating critique of poor M. Derrida (not that I have a clue about the guy) to apply just about perfectly to many of your own digressive philosophical ramblings about this forum.

Now, I would never dream of presuming to be so arrogant as to even suggest that you or anybody shouldn't write exactly what they please around here, and I freely admit that I'm a damned horse's backside for complaining at all (and also that I can't hang with you on the higher learning front). But I would like to know one thing: If you reread what you wrote above and then ask yourself if it describes your contributions at times, would you agree with me that indeed it does, even if just a little bit? :-)

P.S. - Permission granted (as if you or anybody else who cares to respond needed it) to fire away at will; with all the BS I've no doubt thrown on the proverbial wall in these precints - if not for this post alone - I've surely gotta deserve it. Sorry, but there it was, and here it is.

Zaikesman, thank you for asking so politely, or seemingly so (ie conclusory claims of "digressive ramblings", unsubstantiated, is hardly an effort at diplomacy...)

Yes, I've said this before, and knew that the Derrida comment might elicit a few sighs of recognition, but I usually only ramp it up when the other person has begun to hide behind derision, or has tried to use intellectualism to retreat - and, trust me, it is still put rather simply by academic standards. And, as I said, I wasn't as good at it before. That said, the above is perfectly understandable and concise.

The question then becomes, is it relevant? I think a lot of people conclude that what I'm saying isn't relevant because they don't want to take the time to read it - which is, of course, their choice. But recoil from ideas on the part of the reader is not the same as obfuscation on behalf of the writer. Granted, I do make certain assumptions concerning cognitive agility, but I think most all people here can understand what "cognitive agility" is. Now, ask yourself, be honest, did you RESENT me using those words - the moment they hit your mind - even though you understood them? Is it the ideas you don't want, or the words?

Hmmm...

What I said about Derrida is that he said some things about what words were not, removing their foundation of meaning, but never pointed to a solution beyond his deconstruction. If you have read my posts closely you will see that they are always integrative in approach, the opposite of Derrida (he was a French philosopher). Anyone who has studied Derrida, or Popper, or Kuhn, or Wilber, or Maslow, or Jung, would cringe at the level of simplicity I use here. When discussing deeper concepts, it is sometimes necessary to use bigger words. That does not make them "bad".

But here's the real reason.

Some people look at this forum as entertainment, and, yes, I would agee that it is and should be that. Others want it ONLY to be entertainment. Others vascillate between the poles, their resistance to whatever "seriousness" they find varying with their inclination at the time, chiding others for the same things that they themselves do at times, many times that "mood" determined by whether they agree with the poster, or, when they don't think they can "win" that argument (the I'm-pissed-because-I'm-not-smarter syndrome).

What I've seen is some very smart people who like to use their intelligence in dialogue as a club, usually a scientific club, and don't like it when someone takes it away from them. Many times to get it from their grip, one must use a level of dialogue that gets their attention and which they have difficulty hiding from. Intellectual precision, as it were. Their resentment invariably takes the form of claims of obfuscation, or regression, or "digression", or "irrelevancy", without offering any reasons for their conclusion.

Digressive, irrelevant? By Joe, Zaikesman, what could you possibly mean?

You know, Detlof got it, krusty saw it, Jetter came around, Gregm gets it. What's up?

Hmmm...