On 21/06/07, Russell Standish <lists.domain.name.hidden> wrote:
RS:
It seems you've miscontrued my "bashing", sorry about that. I was,
perhaps somewhat colourfully, meaning "extracting some meaning". Since
your prose (and often Colin's for that matter) often sounds like
gibberish to me, I have to work at it, rather like bashing a lump of
metal with a hammer. Sometimes I succeed, but other times I just have
to give up.
DN:
I do sympathise, truly!
RS:
I most certainly didn't mean "unwarranted critising of", or "flaming". I am
interested in learning, and I don't immediately assume that you (or
anyone else for that matter) have nothing interesting to say.
DN:
No, I've never thought you were 'flaming' and I genuinely appreciate any
time you take to respond. I was only indicating the sort of response that
would most help the improvement of my thought process.
RS:
Terminology is terminology, it doesn't have a point of view.
DN:
This may be a nub of disagreement. I'd be interested if you could clarify.
My characterisation of a narrative as '3-person' is when (ISTM) that it's an
abstraction from, or projection of, some 'situation' that is fundamentally
'participative'. Do you disagree with this?
By contrast, I've been struggling recently with language that engages
directly with 'participation'. But this leads to your next point.....
RS:
Terms
should have accepted meaning, unless we agree on a different meaning
for the purposes of discussion.
DN:
But where there is no generally accepted meaning, or a disputed one, how can
we then proceed? Hence my attempts at definition (which I hate BTW), and
which you find to be gibberish. Is there a way out of this?
BTW, when I read 'Theory of Nothing', which I find very cogent, ISTM that
virtually its entire focus is on aspects of a 'participatory' approach. So
I'm more puzzled than ever why we're in disagreement. I've really been
trying to say that points-of-view (or 'worlds') emerge from *structure*
defined somehow, and that (tautologically, surely) the 'primitives' of such
structure (in whatever theoretical terms we choose) must be capable of
'animating' such povs or worlds. IOW povs are always 'takes' on the whole
situation, not inherent in individuated 'things'.
RS:
2) Oxygen and hydrogen atoms as counterexamples of a chemical
potential that is not an electric field
DN:
I certainly didn't mean to imply this! I just meant that we seemed to be
counterposing 'abstracted' and 'participative' accounts, in the sense I
indicate above. Something would really help me at this point: could I ask
how would you relate 'physical' levels of description you've used (e.g.
'oxygen and hydrogen atoms') to the 'participative' approach of 'TON'?
IOW, how do these narratives converge on the range of phenomena to be
explained?
David
> On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 12:22:31AM -0000, David Nyman wrote:
> >
> > On Jun 21, 1:45 pm, Russell Standish <l....domain.name.hidden> wrote:
> >
> > > You assume way too much about my motives here. I have only been trying
> to
> > > bash some meaning out of the all too flaccid prose that's being flung
> > > about at the moment. I will often employ counterexamples simply to
> > > illustrate points of poor terminology, or sloppy thinking. Its a
> > > useful exercise, not a personal attack on beliefs.
> >
> > Russell, If you believe that a particular thought is poorly expressed
> > or sloppy, I would appreciate any help you might offer in making it
> > more precise, rather than 'bashing' it.
>
> It seems you've miscontrued my "bashing", sorry about that. I was,
> perhaps somewhat colourfully, meaning "extracting some meaning". Since
> your prose (and often Colin's for that matter) often sounds like
> gibberish to me, I have to work at it, rather like bashing a lump of
> metal with a hammer. Sometimes I succeed, but other times I just have
> to give up.
>
> I most certainly didn't mean "unwarranted critising of", or "flaming". I
> am
> interested in learning, and I don't immediately assume that you (or
> anyone else for that matter) have nothing interesting to say.
>
> > Sometimes conversations on
> > the list feel more like talking past one another, and this in general
> > isn't 'a useful exercise'. My comment to Brent was motivated by a
> > perception that you'd been countering my 1-personal terminology with 3-
> > person formalisms.
>
> Terminology is terminology, it doesn't have a point of view. Terms
> should have accepted meaning, unless we agree on a different meaning
> for the purposes of discussion.
>
> > Consequently, as such, they didn't strike me as
> > equivalent, or as genuine 'counterexamples': this surprised me, in
>
> Which counterexamples are you talking about?
>
> 1) Biological evolution as a counterexample to Colin's assertion about
> doing science implies consciousness. This started this thread.
>
> 2) Oxygen and hydrogen atoms as counterexamples of a chemical
> potential that is not an electric field
>
> 3) Was there something else? I can't quite recall now.
>
> > view of some of the other ideas you've expressed. So I may well have
> > been too swift to assign certain motives to you, not having detected
> > any pedagogically-motivated intent to caricature, and I would welcome
> > your more specific clarification and correction.
> >
> > I should say at this point that I too find the 'terminology' task very
> > trying, as virtual any existing vocabulary comes freighted with pre-
> > existing implications of the sort you have been exploiting in your
> > ripostes, but which I didn't intend. I would welcome any superior
> > alternatives you might suggest. Trying or not, I'm not quite ready to
> > give up the attempt to clarify these ideas. If you think the exercise
> > misconceived or poorly executed, it's of course up to you to choose to
> > 'bash', satirise, or ignore it, but I would particularly welcome open-
> > ended questions.
> >
>
> I don't recall satirising anything recently. It is true that I usually
> ignore comments that don't make sense after a couple of minutes of
> staring at the phrase, unless really prodded like you did in your
> recent post on attributing sensing to arbitrary interactions.
>
>
> --
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
> Mathematics
> UNSW SYDNEY 2052 hpcoder.domain.name.hidden
> Australia http://www.hpcoders.com.au
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Fri Jun 22 2007 - 09:06:23 PDT