An axiomatic paradox?

[tjohnson]

I think GS is one of the more pleasant participants on OL, he doesn't pontificate and he doesn't resort to ad hominems or condescension towards his opponents. His remarks are sometimes perceptive, sometimes they are illogical, but you can at least discuss them with him without having to endure personal attacks. On the other hand he's not always treated fairly, as the following example shows:

Thanks for your kind words I question whether or not there is an absolute 'logic' which applies universally, except in mathematics. This is related to what I just asked Mindy, because it is only when there is absolute logic that there can be absolute proof of a statement.

[Mindy Newton]

You might be right, Paul, about the spirit in which DF's quip was intended. Coming in the context in which it appears, however, it seemed to me to be indicating censure for GS's treatment here.

DF can clarify how he meant the remark, if he wants to.

I was thinking of the stereotypical style of Objectivists in general, but that doesn't mean that no one on OL is guilty of that. For example to characterize him as

He is the evil which we sanction.

sounds exactly like one of those condemnations of a dissenter by an Objectivist Online moderator.

I think GS is one of the more pleasant participants on OL, he doesn't pontificate and he doesn't resort to ad hominems or condescension towards his opponents. His remarks are sometimes perceptive, sometimes they are illogical, but you can at least discuss them with him without having to endure personal attacks. On the other hand he's not always treated fairly, as the following example shows:

We start with empty file folders (whether you consider these to be conceptual entities themselves or contexts that integrate entities and their properties-- all a matter of whether you are applying a part-to-whole or a whole-to-part orientation of consciousness; Rand's vs Popper's epistemic perspectives or everyone vs MSK's perspective; it's the same principle as wave/particle duality) all the time. Starting with an empty file folder is the nature of the academic approach to learning: here is a new word, "epistemology"; now go and figure out what it means-- i.e.: fill the file folder with a concept by using these authors as a guide.

Interesting Paul, as I think I mentioned here before, the work of Northrop is similar to this. He describes 2 basic kinds of concepts, concept by intuition, roughly equivalent to an idea formed from observation, like a pencil, and concept by postulation, which is an idea formed from a symbolic description, like a quark. Then there is a constant interplay between these concepts in our brain which he calls epistemic correlation.

Mindy then asks:

GS,

When you say, "the work of Northrop is similar to this," in reply to Paul's comment about alternative "epistemic perspectives," one of which is Ayn Rand's, aren't you implying that you are familiar with Rand's epistemology? You would have to be familiar with it to claim it is similar to Northrop's view, right?

and GS replies:

Yes, you would.

Wherupon Brant remarks:

Essentially, then, you are a troll.

So GS is accused of being a troll because he would have compared Northrop's view with Rand's ideas, while he isn't familiar with Rand's epistemology. But as you clearly can see, this is not what GS claimed, he merely replied to Paul's description of two different perspectives, Rand's being one of them, namely part-to-whole or a whole-to-part orientation of consciousness, and GS only remarked that Northrop's ideas were similar to that kind of classification. Now you may perhaps dispute the similarity of Paul's two perspectives with those of Northrop, but the reproach that GS is saying something about Rand without being familiar with her ideas is unwarranted, as it is Paul who is making that classification of Rand's view. GS readily admitted that he doesn't know whether that classification really applies to Rand, which was of course not relevant as he never claimed that in the first place.

If only he'd had you to write his post for him! "...Northrop is similar to this," would have read quite differently.

= Mindy

[Brant Gaede]

I was referring to the previous quotation, not Northrop. I thought that'd be easily figured out. Anyway, I take back "evil." Much too strong a word for this.

--Brant

Edited September 18, 2008 by Brant Gaede

[Dragonfly]

I was referring to the previous quotation, not Northrop. I thought that'd be easily figured out.

Not if you put your comment just below the second quotation. But the first one doesn't make GS a troll either. GS doesn't make claims about Rand's writings, so he doesn't have to read them, he only wants to discuss certain philosophical issues on a forum dedicated to a self-proclaimed rational philosophy, which in my opinion is a legitimate option on this forum. I think he has made some valuable contributions, at least more so than some avowed Objectivists.

Anyway, I take back "evil." Much too strong a word for this.

OK.

[Brant Gaede]

I was referring to the previous quotation, not Northrop. I thought that'd be easily figured out.

Not if you put your comment just below the second quotation. But the first one doesn't make GS a troll either. GS doesn't make claims about Rand's writings, so he doesn't have to read them, he only wants to discuss certain philosophical issues on a forum dedicated to a self-proclaimed rational philosophy, which in my opinion is a legitimate option on this forum. I think he has made some valuable contributions, at least more so than some avowed Objectivists.

Anyway, I take back "evil." Much too strong a word for this.

OK.

I should have stripped out all the material extraneous to my comment. As for discusing philosophical issues, he's welcome. But unless he gets out of this semantical/epistemological fixation which he keeps repeating to no good didactic effect, I'll just have to reblock him.

--Brant

[Paul Mawdsley]

Paul,

Don't imagine we don't all feel our meaning isn't getting across, all too often!

Everybody,

I feel I need to repeat a couple of things, since I know I'm viewed as the agitator against Paul's use of the terms related to pancritical rationalism.

As far as I'm concerned, anybody can say anything, as long as they can (1) explain what they mean, and (2) are willing to back it up.

If one resorts to something like: "I don't have to explain this because you are incapacitated, by your hidden-from-yourself assumptions, so you cannot understand the truth of my position," I call a foul.

When Paul puts forth that Objectivists (or anyone, of course) cannot understand certain things because of their "metacontext," he is refusing to respond to the questions or criticism put to him. Essentially, he's saying, "While it looks like you've got me, really, you cheated; you're wearing the wrong socks (or lenses?)"

It is a procedural problem I'm raising. I don't need GS to read any Objectivism. I don't wish Paul not to use any or all terms he's made up himself or from any source, AS LONG AS they are willing and able to define their terms, and respond with reasons to what I then say.

The way to use terms you cannot define, or ideas you are trying out is to make them the topic of discussion.

= Mindy

Mindy,

It's hard to understand how wrong you could be about what I am saying, about my motives, and about my intentions. It's like looking at myself in a fun house mirror. The question I am left asking myself is: how can you be so wrong? How can you misinterpret what I am trying to communicate so wildly? And yet, I get the feeling you are not the only one who seems to be interpreting my meaning, motives and intentions in such a distorted way. How do I understand this? And how do I communicate my hypothesis about how this has occured when every attempt to communicate it seems to deepen the distortion? If I took it personally, I would be offended. But I don't. I am just confused and frustrated.

For some reason very intelligent people here on OL don't understand what I have to say. I am certain it is not because I lack intelligence, or because I don't know what I'm talking about, or because I don't know how to use the English language. So why is everything I am saying being reflected back sounding like I'm a judgmental prick applying slime ball tactics to maintain my position adverse to those I am conversing with, when I'm not even trying to maintain an adversarial position at all? I am trying to engage in open dialogue in a manner that is more akin to brainstorming than arguing, but everyone keeps interpreting me as holding an adversarial position.

The assumption of adversaries is part of the metacontext problem I am referring to. I generally enter discussions assuming the game is about working as a research team to find the truth, not working as adversaries, each trying to win the title of being right. I am not trying to be right, dammit! I am trying to explore the facts, generate hypotheses, and form a model of the dynamics we are discussing, in order to discover a view of things we can agree on. It is your assumption that I am acting as an adversary that is causing you to paint me as an adversary. This is why you are reflecting an image of me that is so distorted.

Let me try to illustrate. Earlier Ellen took offense to DF's quip about O'ists because of how she interpreted it. I interpreted his quip in a different way. I hypothesized DF to be holding a different subjective context from what Ellen hypothesized. If she responded from an assumed general context of us having adversarial positions, and I responded by maintaining my own assumptions and position as adversarial, we would not have found easy resolution. Each would have been certain the other was wrong. But this is not what happened. Ellen allowed herself to try on the perspective I offered. She assumed the position of lab partner considering an hypothesis rather than a debater maintaining a polemic. She shifted perspectives, judged what she saw, and realized it made more sense-- integrated more known facts and existing contexts (e.g.: it fit better with her understanding of DF's character) than her original perspective.

This was contexts and metacontexts at work. Ellen's metacontext in this situation, that of assuming alternate perspectives can work together to discover the truth, determined how she framed the interaction, how she understood my actions, and what actions she chose. We briefly worked as a team to discover the truth.

This is the framework I have entered into discussions with you only to find you misinterpreting my intentions and motives as being adversarial. I respect your insight and intelligence and am interested in working together to seek the truth but I have no interest in dialogue that assumes an adversarial relationship. I don't enjoy operating this way. If I did, I could find it on other O'ist sites. If you can only assume an adversarial position relative to my explorations, then I am not interested in pursuing this further. If you can bare to consider my position as just that of a fellow explorer, then we may be able to generate some productive dialogue. Far from my trying to say you can't understand me because "you're wearing the wrong socks," I believe the latter is possible and hope that it is true.

I see adversarial positions as being similar to behaviour in emergencies: they often don't make sense in normal conditions. In normal conditions we are not under attack. Why should we act like we assume we are?

Paul

Edited September 19, 2008 by Paul Mawdsley

[Ellen Stuttle]

For some reason very intelligent people here on OL don't understand what I have to say. I am certain it is not because I lack intelligence, or because I don't know what I'm talking about, or because I don't know how to use the English language. So why is everything I am saying being reflected back sounding like I'm a judgmental prick applying slime ball tactics to maintain my position adverse to those I am conversing with, when I'm not even trying to maintain an adversarial position at all? I am trying to engage in open dialogue in a manner that is more akin to brainstorming than arguing, but everyone keeps interpreting me as holding an adversarial position.

Paul,

Maybe I can help somewhat because of what might have turned out to be a stroke of good fortune, i.e., my misinterpreting Dragonfly's intentions in that quip he made. You use the incident as an example. You write:

Let me try to illustrate. Earlier Ellen took offense to DF's quip about O'ists because of how she interpreted it. I interpreted his quip in a different way. I hypothesized DF to be holding a different subjective context from what Ellen hypothesized. If she responded from an assumed general context of us having adversarial positions, and I responded by maintaining my own assumptions and position as adversarial, we would not have found easy resolution. Each would have been certain the other was wrong. But this is not what happened. Ellen allowed herself to try on the perspective I offered. She assumed the position of lab partner considering an hypothesis rather than a debater maintaining a polemic. She shifted perspectives, judged what she saw, and realized it made more sense-- integrated more known facts and existing contexts (e.g.: it fit better with her understanding of DF's character) than her original perspective.

This was contexts and metacontexts at work. Ellen's metacontext in this situation, that of assuming alternate perspectives can work together to discover the truth, determined how she framed the interaction, how she understood my actions, and what actions she chose. We briefly worked as a team to discover the truth.

If it weren't that what you're talking about there is a specific instance in which I was a participant, and thus one in regard to which I can directly connect the words you're using to the particulars of what happened, I'd feel lost in the web of words, without direction markers as to what you mean.

Suppose I were trying to describe a situation like that. I might, for instance, say: Fortunately, Ellen didn't have a chip on her shoulder and she re-read the sequence considering if she'd misinterpreted it.

I.e., I'd use short and simple language to convey the dynamics. I find that trying to follow the complexities of your language of "contexts" and "metacontexts" only clutters up the picture until the dynamics you're trying to illustrate are lost in the words.

As to why you're coming across to some of us (at least to both me and Mindy) as accusatory, speaking for myself, it's because you seem to be trying to instruct people on how they should see and evaluate "contexts" which maybe they feel they already do see clearly and which they consider wrong. You seem to be saying, now, if you'd only set aside your distorting lenses, you'd be able to understand the other person and you'd reach a mutual, embracing perspective.

But, Paul, let me ask you this question: Suppose you did not commit a murder, and suppose someone claims you did. Do you think there'd be some higher integrative perspective in which both you and your accuser are right, that it's only a matter of "lenses" whether you killed someone or not, each perspective is a part of the whole, and why do you protest your innocence?

You started out this subject (on this thread) with some talk of people holding "absolutist" perspectives; also with some pejorative-sounding talk about people who come from an academic "context." Your message has seemed to be a negative one addressed to persons (as in, me) who think there is such a thing as truth.

I asked a number of posts ago -- maybe you missed the question, since the post was primarily addressed to Mindy: Who are the people here you're calling absolutists? It isn't hard to suspect who they are. On the assumption that I am one of them, well, no thanks. I'm not in the market for changing my "metacontext" to a different "metacontext" than my belief that there is truth and that the attempt to find truth (though always realizing that I'll never be certain of having found it) is important. I can recognize that other people come at things differently from my perspective, but my recognition of their perspective isn't going to make me willing to adopt their perspective.

Does the above help with clues as to how and why the communication is going amiss?

Ellen

___

Edited September 19, 2008 by Ellen Stuttle

[sbeaulieu]

It's times like these where I'm alt-tabbing like a madman to hit dictionary.com :frantics:

As a previous military instructor, it was my job to assess my audience before introducing them to the theories and mechanics. It was my job to make sure they understood the terms. It was my job to ensure the material was of a language they were familiar with. It was my job to use analogies (as many times as necessary) that clicked via associations.

In order for us to understand Paul's perspective, a common denominator between him and the participants has to be found (language, examples, analogies, etc).

I may be oversimplifying, but I won't attempt to throw words that I don't understand the full meaning of. It's just a basic approach I've learned over 4 years of teaching that has proven successful to me when teaching high-level communications (IT).

~ Shane

Edited September 19, 2008 by sbeaulieu

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

But, Paul, let me ask you this question: Suppose you did not commit a murder, and suppose someone claims you did. Do you think there'd be some higher integrative perspective in which both you and your accuser are right, that it's only a matter of "lenses" whether you killed someone or not, each perspective is a part of the whole, and why do you protest your innocence?

Ellen,

I "get" Paul. I will let him speak for himself, but I do not think he means that shifting metacontexts (which is a fancy word for perspectives) will alter the truth of innocence or guilt. If you read his last post, he speaks of arriving at the truth, so obviously there is only one standard for everyone at the end.

Where Paul's thinking would be useful in the above example is in trying to understand why the person who did murder did what he did: whether it was due to psychosis or outright evil, or most likely, a combination of both. (The metacontexts being health or morality.) It would also be useful in examining the accuracy and perspectives of witnesses, etc. But guilt or innocence are matters of fact, not perspective, and I do not think Paul is saying otherwise.

Where you and Mindy don't get Paul is that he is trying to learn and explore, not teach. when he finds an idea fascinating. And he is insisting on using his own mind and observations as the final standard, not the perspective of any one person. I am highly sympathetic to this "lens" because I use it a lot myself. For some reason it does tend to piss off some people.

In essence, I do not see him as saying, "You are wrong," so much as, "I understand what you are saying, but I am looking at the issue from over there, not from where you are at. It looks a whole lot different from over there."

Maybe that helps. At least that's what it looks like from my metacontext and lens.

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

[...] metacontexts (which is a fancy word for perspectives) [...]

If "metacontexts" is "a fancy word for perspectives," what's the need of the fancy word? What does it add that "perspectives" doesn't already cover?

Where Paul's thinking would be useful in the above example is in trying to understand why the person who did murder did what he did: whether it was due to psychosis or outright evil, or most likely, a combination of both. (The metacontexts being health or morality.) It would also be useful in examining the accuracy and perspectives of witnesses, etc.

Again, I don't see what would be added by "metacontexts." People already abundantly explore the type of questions you indicate.

Where you and Mindy don't get Paul is that he is trying to learn and explore, not teach. when he finds an idea fascinating.

I wouldn't say that that's where I don't get Paul. I've known Paul in listland for upward of a year longer than I've known you, and I've never thought of him as being out to teach.

And he is insisting on using his own mind and observations as the final standard, not the perspective of any one person. I am highly sympathetic to this "lens" because I use it a lot myself. For some reason it does tend to piss off some people.

Michael, I don't think that anyone is objecting to Paul's "using his own mind and observations as the final standard." (Certainly I'm not objecting to that.) Nor have I noticed people's being pissed off specifically by your "using [your] own mind and observations as the final standard" -- by other things you do, yes, but not specifically by that. (Certainly when I get pissed off with you, the source of the be-pissment isn't that.)

Ellen

___

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ellen,

LOL...

Call it what you want. I have noticed that when I say I fully understand what you are saying, that I disagree with it, and that you have not yet shown signs of understanding where I am coming from, you usually get pissed off. Sometimes I'll say I'm groping at an idea and sometimes I'll say I have my mind set. You don't usually get pissed off at first, but after a while. It's an identifiable pattern.

The present thing about teacher and learner shows all the signs of being another one.

Michael

[Mindy Newton]

Paul,

Don't imagine we don't all feel our meaning isn't getting across, all too often!

Everybody,

I feel I need to repeat a couple of things, since I know I'm viewed as the agitator against Paul's use of the terms related to pancritical rationalism.

As far as I'm concerned, anybody can say anything, as long as they can (1) explain what they mean, and (2) are willing to back it up.

If one resorts to something like: "I don't have to explain this because you are incapacitated, by your hidden-from-yourself assumptions, so you cannot understand the truth of my position," I call a foul.

When Paul puts forth that Objectivists (or anyone, of course) cannot understand certain things because of their "metacontext," he is refusing to respond to the questions or criticism put to him. Essentially, he's saying, "While it looks like you've got me, really, you cheated; you're wearing the wrong socks (or lenses?)"

It is a procedural problem I'm raising. I don't need GS to read any Objectivism. I don't wish Paul not to use any or all terms he's made up himself or from any source, AS LONG AS they are willing and able to define their terms, and respond with reasons to what I then say.

The way to use terms you cannot define, or ideas you are trying out is to make them the topic of discussion.

= Mindy

Mindy,

It's hard to understand how wrong you could be about what I am saying, about my motives, and about my intentions. It's like looking at myself in a fun house mirror. The question I am left asking myself is: how can you be so wrong? How can you misinterpret what I am trying to communicate so wildly? And yet, I get the feeling you are not the only one who seems to be interpreting my meaning, motives and intentions in such a distorted way. How do I understand this? And how do I communicate my hypothesis about how this has occured when every attempt to communicate it seems to deepen the distortion? If I took it personally, I would be offended. But I don't. I am just confused and frustrated.

For some reason very intelligent people here on OL don't understand what I have to say. I am certain it is not because I lack intelligence, or because I don't know what I'm talking about, or because I don't know how to use the English language. So why is everything I am saying being reflected back sounding like I'm a judgmental prick applying slime ball tactics to maintain my position adverse to those I am conversing with, when I'm not even trying to maintain an adversarial position at all? I am trying to engage in open dialogue in a manner that is more akin to brainstorming than arguing, but everyone keeps interpreting me as holding an adversarial position.

The assumption of adversaries is part of the metacontext problem I am referring to. I generally enter discussions assuming the game is about working as a research team to find the truth, not working as adversaries, each trying to win the title of being right. I am not trying to be right, dammit! I am trying to explore the facts, generate hypotheses, and form a model of the dynamics we are discussing, in order to discover a view of things we can agree on. It is your assumption that I am acting as an adversary that is causing you to paint me as an adversary. This is why you are reflecting an image of me that is so distorted.

Let me try to illustrate. Earlier Ellen took offense to DF's quip about O'ists because of how she interpreted it. I interpreted his quip in a different way. I hypothesized DF to be holding a different subjective context from what Ellen hypothesized. If she responded from an assumed general context of us having adversarial positions, and I responded by maintaining my own assumptions and position as adversarial, we would not have found easy resolution. Each would have been certain the other was wrong. But this is not what happened. Ellen allowed herself to try on the perspective I offered. She assumed the position of lab partner considering an hypothesis rather than a debater maintaining a polemic. She shifted perspectives, judged what she saw, and realized it made more sense-- integrated more known facts and existing contexts (e.g.: it fit better with her understanding of DF's character) than her original perspective.

This was contexts and metacontexts at work. Ellen's metacontext in this situation, that of assuming alternate perspectives can work together to discover the truth, determined how she framed the interaction, how she understood my actions, and what actions she chose. We briefly worked as a team to discover the truth.

This is the framework I have entered into discussions with you only to find you misinterpreting my intentions and motives as being adversarial. I respect your insight and intelligence and am interested in working together to seek the truth but I have no interest in dialogue that assumes an adversarial relationship. I don't enjoy operating this way. If I did, I could find it on other O'ist sites. If you can only assume an adversarial position relative to my explorations, then I am not interested in pursuing this further. If you can bare to consider my position as just that of a fellow explorer, then we may be able to generate some productive dialogue. Far from my trying to say you can't understand me because "you're wearing the wrong socks," I believe the latter is possible and hope that it is true.

I see adversarial positions as being similar to behaviour in emergencies: they often don't make sense in normal conditions. In normal conditions we are not under attack. Why should we act like we assume we are?

Paul

Paul, I'm not psychologizing you. I'm not thinking about what your intentions might be. I'm not thinking, this is Paul, we've talked before, we've had some back-and-forth, and worked out what started out as a misunderstanding... I actually, honestly am not taking that view of things at all. Not at all. I'm not guessing at your motives. I'm not worrying about them. I'm not worrying about you. I am responding to the DISCUSSION.

The DISCUSSION gets bogged down if meaningless verbiage is added. Words/phrases you can't define are just that.

The DISCUSSION is de-railed if someone claims, "I'm right, but you just can't see it." And that's what you actually did.

I've tried to get you to define your terms. You didn't. I've tried to explain the logic of your "metacontext" trump card. I've done these things to be able to keep discussing with you. I tried to show that these problems are fundamental to thought, and therefore fundamental to discussion. Did none of that come through?

It appears that you don't want to limit yourself to words you can define or explain. It appears that you want to be able to resort to disqualifying your opponent. Your choice, of course. No hard feelings.

I have to point out that nobody has been as adversarial as you have been. When you call, "metacontext!" you are turning the chess board right over.

= Mindy

[BaalChatzaf]

Dining on Word Salad can sometimes cause indigestion.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Mindy Newton]

It's times like these where I'm alt-tabbing like a madman to hit dictionary.com :frantics:

As a previous military instructor, it was my job to assess my audience before introducing them to the theories and mechanics. It was my job to make sure they understood the terms. It was my job to ensure the material was of a language they were familiar with. It was my job to use analogies (as many times as necessary) that clicked via associations.

In order for us to understand Paul's perspective, a common denominator between him and the participants has to be found (language, examples, analogies, etc).

I may be oversimplifying, but I won't attempt to throw words that I don't understand the full meaning of. It's just a basic approach I've learned over 4 years of teaching that has proven successful to me when teaching high-level communications (IT).

~ Shane

That sounds like an excellent teaching method.

As for understanding Paul's perspective, I think we all do.

= Mindy

[william.scherk]

Nor have I noticed people's being pissed off specifically by your "using [your] own mind and observations as the final standard" -- by other things you do, yes, but not specifically by that. (Certainly when I get pissed off with you, the source of the be-pissment isn't that.)

I have noticed that when I say I fully understand what you are saying, that I disagree with it, and that you have not yet shown signs of understanding where I am coming from, you usually get pissed off. Sometimes I'll say I'm groping at an idea and sometimes I'll say I have my mind set. You don't usually get pissed off at first, but after a while. It's an identifiable pattern.

So, sometimes, when there is an issue of be-pissment on the part of Ellen, and be-musement on the part of Michael, it is because Michael is right and Ellen is wrong. At other times, the be-pissment and be-musement is because Ellen is wrong and Michael is right. And Michael believes that he fully understands Ellen, but somehow she doesn't show signs of understanding him . . .

Do I have this more or less correct, Michael?

Sometimes when we are told we are wrong, after the rage subsides and the bazookas are put back in the jeep, and the wargame fantasies are dimmed, and all the audience goes home to sleep, sometimes we are wrong but don't know how to admit it.

[Ellen Stuttle]

[...] I have noticed that when I say I fully understand what you are saying, that I disagree with it, and that you have not yet shown signs of understanding where I am coming from, you usually get pissed off. Sometimes I'll say I'm groping at an idea and sometimes I'll say I have my mind set. You don't usually get pissed off at first, but after a while. It's an identifiable pattern.

Saying one fully understands and exhibiting understanding aren't identical. I'll tell you what soon starts to piss me off: your responding to some mangled version of what I said which isn't what I said (while not bothering to quote what I did say), plus the accompanying attribution of motives. It indeed is an identifiable pattern.

Btw, you're doing the same sort of thing with Chris Baker on another thread ("Hudgins Quoted...," here). His patience didn't last as long as mine used to.

Ellen

___

[Ellen Stuttle]

As for understanding Paul's perspective, I think we all do.

I wouldn't say that I do. I'm trying to understand, but I'm not confident that I'm succeeding at the attempt.

Ellen

___

[Paul Mawdsley]

Boy is this hard to wrap my head around. I appreciate the consideration and effort of those who are trying to understand my perspective and/or trying to get their perspective through to me. It is very valuable to me.

It seems Michael gets my motives and intentions. Ellen, more than anyone, has shown signs of glimpsing some of my more unusual ideas over the time I have known her, both here and on Branden's old site. And Mindy is simply talking about someone I don't know and accusing me of things I haven't done.

I feel like I'm in an epistemic cocoon struggling to get out. At times it seems to verge on autistic. I'm being kept in by an inability to communicate clearly. Best as I can understand, the transmitter and the receivers are tuned to different frequencies and, at best, only partial signals are getting through. I want to fix this.

(Damn, I'm tired...long hours at work and life is busy.)

I will respond to each of the posts addressed to me as I can find time. It's important to me.

Mindy,

How can you unequivocally understand the meaning of someone's words without considering the context from which they present their perspective? If you don't take a person's subjective context into account when trying to understand the meaning of his words, then psychological projection must fill in the empty spaces to generate meaning. The use of language is not unequivocal. Context, both objective and subjective contexts, determines the specific meaning of words, and what is read between the lines.

(Note: this is an hypothesis open for discussion, not a truth claim or an accusation. It is presented in the context of: why is your view of what I say so skewed from the meaning I intend. It is not presented in the context of: This is why your view of what I say is so skewed! The first assumes my point of view is relative. The second assumes my point of view is absolute. Reality is absolute. My view of it is existentially relative: I exist in and observe from my body, my subjective context, and my philosophical lens. But epistemically we can move our perspective closer to the absolute--though absolute knowledge of reality is a limit we can never reach-- through epistemic methods that make systematic use of evidence, theory generation and falsification. This is not relativism. It is a form of realism. It is the practice of science and objective metaphysics without assuming that knowledge requires some special connection with the absolutes of reality.)

Paul

[Paul Mawdsley]

As for understanding Paul's perspective, I think we all do.

I wouldn't say that I do. I'm trying to understand, but I'm not confident that I'm succeeding at the attempt.

Ellen

___

Thank you, Ellen.

Paul

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

So, sometimes, when there is an issue of be-pissment on the part of Ellen, and be-musement on the part of Michael, it is because Michael is right and Ellen is wrong. At other times, the be-pissment and be-musement is because Ellen is wrong and Michael is right. And Michael believes that he fully understands Ellen, but somehow she doesn't show signs of understanding him . . .

Do I have this more or less correct, Michael?

William,

When you're right you're right.

How could it be otherwise?

Michael

EDIT: Quipping aside, the problem with my discussions with Ellen is not that one is always wrong and the other is always right. She has a habit of stubbornly refusing to consider what a person is trying to get at while telling them they are actually thinking something else or telling them flat out they are wrong. She doesn't just do that with me, either. Look at what she is doing with Paul. That doesn't work with me, so we go at it.

It's not a consistent habit, though. It comes and goes. I haven't mapped this to the full moon, yet, but I have my suspicions...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Btw, you're doing the same sort of thing with Chris Baker on another thread ("Hudgins Quoted...," here). His patience didn't last as long as mine used to.

Ellen,

No I am not mangling. I am simply pulling the cover off of what is between the lines. I don't like biased connotations and then going for 4th and 5th definitions when called on the obvious.

But then my method is not as ham-handed as Pastor Manning. That's always an option...

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

[....] Ellen, more than anyone, has shown signs of glimpsing some of my more unusual ideas over the time I have known her, both here and on Branden's old site. [....]

A bizarre feature of this situation is the historic fact that the reason I started posting on NB's old site was to provide some moral support for you in a situation where I felt that you were getting the short end of the stick. I have remained interested in trying to understand your views ever since. I just often don't have the time and energy (and e-list-reading stamina), since you write at length, and one has to learn, or try to learn, your particular vocabulary. Sometimes there are moments where we have a "click" of understanding, and then stretches where the communication seems like static with "the signal" not penetrating.

Ellen

___

[tjohnson]

If you don't take a person's subjective context into account when trying to understand the meaning of his words, then psychological projection must fill in the empty spaces to generate meaning. The use of language is not unequivocal. Context, both objective and subjective contexts, determines the specific meaning of words, and what is read between the lines.

(Note: this is an hypothesis open for discussion, not a truth claim or an accusation. It is presented in the context of: why is your view of what I say so skewed from the meaning I intend. It is not presented in the context of: This is why your view of what I say is so skewed! The first assumes my point of view is relative. The second assumes my point of view is absolute. Reality is absolute. My view of it is existentially relative: I exist in and observe from my body, my subjective context, and my philosophical lens. But epistemically we can move our perspective closer to the absolute--though absolute knowledge of reality is a limit we can never reach-- through epistemic methods that make systematic use of evidence, theory generation and falsification. This is not relativism. It is a form of realism. It is the practice of science and objective metaphysics without assuming that knowledge requires some special connection with the absolutes of reality.)

Paul

This is very similar to what is theorized in general semantics, I think.

[BaalChatzaf]

--though absolute knowledge of reality is a limit we can never reach--

Paul

Is this absolutely the case? Sorry Paul, I am just busting your chops a bit. Kindly forgive.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[tjohnson]

Is this absolutely the case? Sorry Paul, I am just busting your chops a bit. Kindly forgive.

Ba'al Chatzaf

This represents an illegitimate totality. You cannot use the current statement as an argument for itself as this leads to a vicious circle which Baal has demonstrated.