On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 17:25, Gomi no Sensei wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, Steve Brust wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> If you would be so kind as to re-examine the paragraph you are responding
> to, you would notice that I did, in fact, allow that many arguments
> do not, in fact, end by resolving the ostensible underlying cause -- indeed
> that one of the popular low-energy states is resolving that the opposing
> interlocutor is someone with whom further discussion is unprofitable.
>
I was imprecise. Excuse me. What you appeared to imply is that
arguments *ought* to end with someone saying, "You're right, I'm
convinced," and that, if they don't, the argument is not fruitful. In
my opinion if the only result is saying, "It's a waste of time to argue
with so-and-so" then to claim that was a fruitful argument is sophistry.
> > 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.
>
> Petitio principii; five yards, loss of down. The means of production are
> worked privately.
>
Er...you are saying the one-man factory is the usual means of commodity
production today? ::clears throat:: I beg to differ.
> "The economy is global, but political government is still determined by
> nation-states" is about as contradicting a statement as 'Water is wet,
> but stone is hard'. Different objects, different properties. The economic
> crises that do occur are generally traceable to interference with the
> operation of the market and poorly crafted and enforced property rights.
>
So, then, politics is different from economics? And yet, it was a
change in economics (the creation, for the first time, of a surplus in
production) that created the need for the state, in order to mediate
over the distribution of this surplus. Peoples who lived without a
surplus did not create any form of state (and never HAD one, except from
contact with other groups). And every change in economic form has
required a change in political form. I think you're really going to
have work to justify that one.
> > 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.
>
> Life turns 'not-itself' into 'itself'. That's a process central to life, the
> transformation. Transformations aren't contradictions. What is there to
> resolve there? Fire turns wood to ash, but wood and ash don't contradict
> each other.
Transformation IS contradiction; it is a thing being itself and
not-itself at the same time. That is precisely the meaning of
transformation.
>
> > 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?
>
> Movement doesn't involve bilocation, but rather a change of location -- it
> only seems paradoxical if you utterly ignore the calculus. At any given
> instant, there is only one location. That location varies smoothly over
> time. There is no contradiction whatever.
>
"Movement involves a change of location." Nicely put. Next, you can
explain that mastication involves chewing, or that flying involves being
off the ground. Exactly how does this change of location take place?
Let's try it another way: without defining movement as I have asserted
it ought to be defined, can you resolve the famous paradox of of the
hare who keeps getting halfway to his goal? The error in this supposed
paradox is precisely that it attempts to see movement as a change from
static condition to another.
> > 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.
>
> If you genuinely believe that statement, I cannot imagine that there is
> much point to extending this discussion. It is not the _recitation_ of
> facts but rather the _establishment_ of fact -- the condensation of fact
> from the vapor of nuance, to steal a phrase -- that renders discussion
> profitable. If fact-based discussions are trivialities, then why are
> discussions of nuclear power generation, drilling in the Alaskan National
> Wildlife Reserve, or anthropogenic climate change so acrimonious?
Exactly for the reasons I've stated. It is a "fact" that many
significant actions in defensive of the environment are harmful to
business, and cost jobs. I don't know of anyone who disputes this.
Different people, however, while agreeing about the facts, differ on
priorities and solutions. Many agree that new technology would solve
much of this problem, yet differ on how the development of his
technology ought to be paid for.
> The
> facts for each are readily available and verifiable. When people discuss
> different sides of each of these matters, they are weighting the relative
> importance of facts, and attempting to prove or disprove the factual nature
> of various assertions.
>
In other words, the facts are not at issue; it is matters surrounding
those facts, the interpretations of the facts, and attitudes and
priorities that differ? "I believe I said that, doctor."
> > 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).
>
> Facts rarely survive contact with the real world? Facts ARE the real world.
>
I don't believe that is precisely what I meant, but, hell let's play
with it anyway. Facts are NOT the real world, facts are first-order
abstractions from it. And what is delightful about them are how quickly
and unexpectedly they turn into their opposites.
> > 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.
>
> All our experience is factual by definition. How could one possibly
> have an experience that was not factual, outside of induced false memory
> (and even then, the false memory is itself an existing fact)?
>
It is a "fact" that, at some point in my life, a certain experience
occurred, for example, the study of philosophy which convinced me that
one's method for interpreting facts was as important as the facts one
interpreted. We both observe that our society goes through regular
crises, yet you believe these are an aberration resulting from
government interference in something called "The Market" whereas I
believe they are part of the very nature of capitalism (forgive me if
I'm misinterpreted your position there). Same fact, different
interpretations. Mine is based on my interpretation of history, my
method of understanding "facts" and how I analyze data. Yours is based
on, presumably, your own interpretation of &c.
For an argument to have value, we get *past* the mere "fact" that these
crises exist, and try to understand why. Of course, you are welcome to
assert, "My understanding of the reason for the crises is a FACT." To
do so, in my opinion, is to dreadfully overwork "fact" and make it
something it isn't. To declare as "fact" everything and anything that
is true ("There is life on planet Eart," "E=MC**2," "I am having an
argument with you via email," "man evolved from more primitive forms of
life," "a human embryo is not a living human being," "Capitalism has
outlived it's usefulness," "you disagree with the previous statement")
is to so broaden the definition of "fact" that it becomes, in essence,
useless.
I believe I can say, without fear of contradiction, that I can nothing
without fear of 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.
>
> Not in the least; as I mentioned previously, we are in some ways arriving
> at the same room through different doors. Therefore, admitting you are right
> is tantamount to reiterating that I am. We are _settling_ a matter; that
> matter may well not be what we originally set out to establish, but something
> is definitely emerging.
I continue to be curious about just what we are settling.
To be as clear as possible: I assert that this argument is valuable, not
because one or the other of us will become convinced of something by the
other, but because our opinions and beliefs will become more sharply
defined, and we will thus each achieve a deeper understanding of the
subject.
And that's a fact. ;-)