Aswad -> RE: Master/slave questions (8/8/2009 2:26:12 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Leonidas Patenting a linguistic pattern....hmmm.... I like it. I wonder if I could write an algorithm that would scour the web looking for those who had infringed. You may be onto something, my friend. I suspect I'm a repeat offender, so that would not be so good. [:D] quote:
It can be useful in pubic communications at times as a lever to either get someone to realize that they are being an idiot, or, failing that, get them to be even more of an idiot, so that the quality becomes more obvious, if you know what I mean. I never said it was an invalid tactic. Else, it would make no sense for me to meta-meta-comment in the same vein. The point, as I'm sure you realize, was that I found it to be misapplied, in that it had a deleterious effect on the thread, and most of the subsequent communication between the two of you. I have no fondness for being included in Michael's sweeping generalizations, either, but I try not to fuck up threads over it, nor bite his heads off right off the bat. When I hand someone rope, I occasionally entangle myself in it, too. Generally, though, the aim tends to be to reduce the arguments supporting the opposing view to absurdity within the frame of reference employed by the opposing party in the debate. Provided I have a conclusion of my own, anyway, or an opinion of the correctness of a given conclusion in the relevant frame of reference. Otherwise, I shut up or throw something out to see if it will elicit responses that can illuminate sides of an issue that I had failed to consider. Having a requisite piece in the puzzle of one's conclusion reduced to absurdity introduces dissonance, and human minds are not equipped to operate under dissonance. Resolution is then forced, even if that means shutting down something (a common response when exposed to extreme environments or situations without adequate preparation), reevaluating (in fact the primary means by which ethical decision making strategies increase in complexity or level of abstraction, cf. our earlier arguments), or searching for a way out (appeal to authority, proxy roles, rationalizations, semantic games, etc.). Most of the time, in a debate, convergence on a conclusion is obtained by searching out facts, assumptions and hints at the process that went from those facts and assumptions to a conclusion. If there's a correction to be made in one's own views, it is ideally made after some reflection. Otherwise, one uncovers the fact, assumption or breaches of reason that have led to a conclusion that is absurd or demonstrably false in the frame of reference where it was forwarded. Repeat until conversion, boredom or admittedly quite entertainingly irrational behavior. Anyway, this is more like meta-commentary-meta-critique, and prolly redundant, so I'm off to bed to shut up now. Health, al-Aswad.
|
|
|
|