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...
