----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Brust" <skzb at dreamcafe.com> To: "Gomi no Sensei" <gomi at speakeasy.net> Cc: <dragaera at dragaera.info> Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2005 12:59 PM Subject: Re: Hello, I'd like to have an argument (was Re: duh!) > On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 16:23, Gomi no Sensei wrote: > > > > I must disagree. I would submit, on the contrary, that anything which > > > can be settled unambiguously is not worth arguing about. > > > > Not once it's settled unambiguously, to be sure. The whole idea is that > > it is NOT settled before the argument, and settled after. Even if the thing > > settled is not necessarily what the participants thought to settle > > going in. All too often, what gets settled is 'is this person someone I > > want to discuss this matter with any further?' But that's settling something, > > which (as I said) is the point of arguing. > > > > If your experience with arguments is that they end when someone says, > "Yes, you're right. I'm convinced," then we are not arguing with the > same sorts of people. The closest I ever remember coming to that is > once when someone said, "I can't answer your argument, but you haven't > convinced me." This astonished me at the time, just because of the > astonishing level of intellectual honesty it implied (I've been the same > position frequently without admitting it). > > > > Thoughts do > > > not emerge from a vacuum, but rather are a product of our interaction > > > with the world. The world around us filled with conflicts and > > > contradictions; the process of cognition necessarily reflects this. > > > Informed argument can bring these contradictions to the surface, which, > > > in general, is an excellent way to increase our understanding of the > > > world. > > > > I do not see how this statement is at all in conflict with my own > > previous assertions -- rather, it is in perfect consonance. It is by > > argument that we resolve the contradictions, that is, settle matters, > > through our increased understanding. > > > Indeed? We resolve contradictions in the real world through our > thoughts? Interesting idea. Here's a real-world contradiction: we live > in a society in which the means of production are worked socially, but > the results (ie, profits) are appropriated privately; and in which the > economy is global, but political government is still determined by > nation-states. This produces unending series of economic crises as well > as wars over markets and control of resources. Kindly "resolve" that > with your thoughts. One thing to be taken in to account, is there a resolution? Any argument made would be more along the lines of a discusion over ideas that may or may not function, thus no resolution may be possible at the moment, but it is in the hope of finding a solution that we argue. > > Is society a bit too complex? Then lets turn to nature. When we speak > of "life" we refer to a body which assimilates matter into itself and > then turns that matter *into* itself. In doing so it will replace all > of it's atoms with other atoms. It is, thus, at any time, itself and > not-itself. It is itself and something else. That's what life IS: > contradiction. Resolve that with your thoughts. I can see how you arrived at that example, but in my opinion (there is that phrase again) the body being made up of parts of "itself" and "not-itself" is not inherantly a contradiction as I understand the word. Change "life IS a contradiction" to "society is made up of contradictions" and I would agree. Life cannot contradict itself and exist. > > If that's too tough, I'll give you one that *exists* in thought, and > therefore ought to be resolvable that way: A body cannot be in two > places at once, nor can it be simultaneously "here" and "not-here." Can > you explain *movement* in any way that doesn't involve a exactly those > two phenomena? > It is a matter of perception, sometimes you go away, but I am always here. . . > > > In particular, given that most thought takes place in language, > > > arguments over language usage are an excellent way to sharpen our minds. > > > > Precisely so -- discussion allows facts to emerge, and one either > > fortifies one's own, correct position, or discovers that it is not > > correct and changes positions. In either case, the discussion > > allows for greater understanding and eventually settles the topic. > > > > This is asking far too much of facts. Matters that can be settled > merely by the recitation of facts are, almost by definition, > trivialities, like axioms in mathematics. And, like axioms, they rarely > survive contact with the real world (anyone who believes that A actually > equals A outside of the most far-removed of abstractions is invited to > consider the matter as applied to any real-world phenomenon). > > Our opinions, attitudes, and beliefs (ie, the stuff of argument) come > not merely from the facts we've met, but from all of our experience. > The conflict represented in the clash of ideas reflects these > differences in our history, usually expressed in our method of thought. > > Would you care for one more unresolvable contradiction? This argument > we are having is forcing me to examine my attitudes and beliefs as part > of the process of expressing my opinion in the most precise way I can. > I am, in fact, learning from this argument, though I do not expect to > convince you. This leaves you in the uncomfortable position of being > unable to convince me of your argument except by admitting that I am > right. > Unless, I am not trying to convince you, rather I am explaining to you how I arrived at my conclusion, and leave you with that knowledge to add to your ideas, and allow you do as you will with it. >>It does appear, however, that we are entering the same room through different doors. >> >>pe So long as we leave them unlocked. . . . Jeff G.