[lbo-talk] Argument

[Sisyphus]

On 4/12/05, snitsnat <snitilicious at tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> At 08:39 PM 4/12/2005, Tom Walker wrote:
> 
> >What I'm saying is that while you have kept yourself occupied dissecting
> >other people's arguments you may have neglected to notice that there is an
> >apparent coherence to those arguments for the other person and that
> >perhaps the same thing is happening to you -- parts of your argument are
> >strong and parts are weak and you mix them all up together and hope the
> >strong parts prevail and take the weak parts with them in the bargain. But
> >then when somebody dissects your argument they go after the weak parts and
> >perhaps you are thinking, "that's not what I meant." Meanwhile, when you
> >dissect their argument they are thinking "that's not what I meant." So
> >beneath it all there is an unacknowledged agreement between the two of you
> >that you were being misunderstood. <...>
> 
> I don't think there's a person on this list who isn't aware of this
> happening. Maybe it's time for a snit poll to see how self-reflective we are.
> 
> Kelley

-------------------

As long as we all agree that I'm pre-emptively infinitely
self-reflective when it comes to navigating/creating the
consistent/paraconsistent/inconsistent triad when it comes to the
fractality of discourses on the ltv....................