virus: meta-talking
Thu, 4 Mar 1999 16:21:45 EST

In a message dated 3/4/99 3:36:55 AM Central Standard Time, writes:

<< Just a little talking about talking here for a moment. (To satisfy my own needs, of course, and not any of yours. If you get something out of this don't blame me--that was never my intent.)>>

Thank you so much!!! I really have gotten something out of this, and I have you to thank for it! You are such a good person to look after us! ;-)

<<Jake wrote:

>I don't think that is exactly your point, though. Faith is a specific and
>clear limitation on rational scrutiny. It is the holding of some
>representation(s) to be in principle exempt from rational scrutiny.

You're aware of course that what you are saying above could be accurately paraphrased as:

>Wait a minute, what your saying isn't what I'm arguing about. Therefore
>you can't be being genuine, because I just know I don't argree with you,
>Reed. This here is what you really must mean, even thought it has nothing
>to do with what you're actually saying..."

But you knew that already, right?>>

No, I sure didn't. But thank you for pointing it out to me. My intention was to describe my position to Reed and how it was different from his own, not to describe his own position to him. When I re-read over my EM, that intention still seems obvious to me. Can you see it?

I think Reed is eager to point to ways in which he thinks that he and I agree. Doing so is not a bad thing, but being too eager about it can lead to misunderstandings. I am satisfied to disagree as long as we have to, to make things clear. Reed still uses a lot of words differently than I do. It doesn't upset me that he does, but I am not going to abandon my own meanings just to be agreeable, and I generally do not like to equivocate. Remember, I am not one of Brodie's elite level 3 thinkers.

<<Just sittin' here listening (might try it some time--does wonders)- -Prof. Tim>>