Kelley:
>>> i pretty much agree with ken. very few criticisms have been raised that
>>> make any sense. i post at length explaining it all and not one of you has
>>> bothered to engage what i've written. ...
Gordon Fitch wrote:
> >Well, I gave it a light try, but y'all Habermas fans seem
> >pretty impervious. That might seem like "not bothering to
> >engage" from the inside. If you really, really wanted to
> >be understood, you'd want to overcome that by understanding,
> >but what we have here seems to be a debate, that is, an
> >exchange in which no one understands anything and the only
> >thing which passes back and forth are moves in the game.
> >That's okay, but it's not the thing you seem to be claiming
> >to promulgate. Or do I have that wrong?
Kelley:
> you obviously didn't try with me. have you replied to any of the lengthier
> posts where i went into H's theory at length and addressed, point for
> point, nearly, the crits on this thread? not to my knowledge. neither did
> anyone else. why?
See? "_I_ said the right things, _they_ didn't." That's the rhetoric of debate. You can win, but it ain't a patch on the joys of subversion and seduction.
But now we have entered the phase of the metadiscussion, the arguing about the argument, which means we are near the end anyway. Does anyone want to take issue with that?