Re: Reponse to Robbie

Jim writes:
<< If you chidingly asked me for a definition (or elaboration), as you said,
then the question was at least partly rhetorical and served the function of
a disagreement. >>

It was almost exclusively rhetorical, I suppose, but it was not serving the
function of disagreement with the content of your assertions. It was
chiding not because I disagreed, but because I thought you were being a jerk
over Luke's misunderstanding you while it seemed to me that you were making
it easy to be misunderstood. I was chiding, not as if to say, "I disagree,"
but as if to say, "Try harder to be understood before insulting people and
telling them that it's their own fault for not understanding."

Also:
<< First -- I don't think the capacity to see something new as a member of a
class of something you're familiar with estabishes the validity of
"generalities." For one thing, if you're really unfamiliar with it, how do
you know you're not misidentifying it? >>

Then the generality failed you in this case. It happens all the time. But
I would contend that one would be worse-off without them. A generality can
certainly be wrong in a particular case, but that doesn't render all of them
useless as a rule, or idiotic.

Also:
<< Next, this seems like a repetition of the identification of the word
"generality" with the word "word" or "definition." I don't think this is
valid at all for the reasons I gave in the previous post. People don't use
the word "generality" in place of "definition," ever, to my knowledge. I'd
like to see this in a sentence. >>

They surely don't. My suggestion was that a definition might in many cases,
at least, be considered a specific sort of generalization.

(And people do sometimes use the verb "to generalize" apart from the more
common use of "generalizations" or "generalities" in contexts of something
like inductive reasoning. Suppose the sentence: "People often learn by
observing particulars and generalizing them.")

Also:
<< I would also say that if you tried to create an abstract definition of
the word "computer" that made all computers readily recognizable and
distinguished them all from non-computers (as well as fit current usage),
you'd find yourself in a great deal of trouble. >>

I didn't mean to suggest setting myself about the task of
dictionary-writing, but was referring to the ordinary activity of each of us
(and each of our dogs and cats, most likely). I don't care to bother with
trying to formulate an abstract definition of "horse" that makes all of them
readily recognizable and distinguishable from non-horses, but I can see a
horse and be pretty sure it ain't a donkey. And I was suggesting that
perhaps this capacity requires that I possess some manner of generality of
horse.

Also:
<< [Your talk of "generality of horse" and all that] had to invalidate [my
definition of generality] somehow, otherwise it was irrelevant. >>

Perhaps it was irrelevant. I meant to explore the idea of generalizing a
bit, with the idea of suggesting that certain things that you were excluding
could nevertheless be reasonably considered generalities.

Jim quotes me as saying:
<< My aim here was not to suggest that Luke was correct in his talk about
enlightenment, but, initially, to (quite playfully) tease you for your
treatment of him, and, if you were interested in my teasings beyond a smiley
or two, to suggest a more thorough explanation of your distinctions, which
were not clear to me. >>

And he responds:
<< If you say that Luke was "correct in his talk about enlightenment" then
you are indeed participating in a "religious discussion" since the two
topics were not separate in Luke's comments. >>

You misread your quotation of me. See above. I did not say that was Luke
was correct in his talk about enlightenment -- if I remember correctly, I
couldn't have cared much less at the time. I said, "My aim here was NOT
[emphasis added] to suggest that Luke was correct [. . . ] BUT, initially,
to [. . . .]"

Also:
<< I don't think it would prove to be completely true that "you're not
attacking anything" if I were to carefully read all your responses to this
thread from beginning to end, but I'm willing to take this as your intent
and go from there. >>

Okay. I'm pretty sure I wasn't. But whatever you like. . .

Jim writes, with another ACCURSED SMILEY! :
<< Speak for yourself, Robbie. Say it bothers _you_. Other people can speak
for themselves. Be a man.
:) >>

Smilies don't really bother me, nor does your occasional practice of
sticking them at the end of statements I can't imagine said with a smile
except by a crazy person. Though I do -- I must admit -- believe that
images of smiles, side-ways or otherwise, belong forever relegated with
lower-case letters dotted with hearts, triple-exclamation points, and
drawings of unicorns.

I was, in fact, speaking for other people. I hope nobody minds. Other
people have said things like it before, and I thought its truth, at that
instant, made it worth saying.

Also:
<< In my response to Scottie I dealt with [its being a tautology] at some
length. You should read that response and get back with me. >>

I did read it. I thought your suggestion that Blake would have seen the
original statement as just as much of a tautology was interesting and
insightful. But that doesn't change the things I said about the quotation,
standing alone, especially if it is quoted in a conversation to make a
point, without the original context (whatever that may have been).

Also:
<< While that follows the grammar, I don't see how it follows the same kind
of logic. Blake was talking about a limited kind of verbal construct -- a
generality (even that in a limited sense, given his context). Speech is a
VAST subject. >>

I think that generalities -- even limited to those meeting the definition
you provided -- are quite vast.

And finally:
<< I think by this point you should have already seen that I agree with this
last statement, but again, this entire part of your argument is only
relevant if Blake was really interested in making a statement about every
class of objects that could possibly be called a generality. >>

If the quotation does not, in fact, mean that To generalize is to be an
idiot, then you can kindly disregard everything I said. I was unaware. If
it does mean that To generalize is to be an idiot, then my thoughts on the
matter have not yet changed.

-robbie

-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Wed Jul 16 23:32:28 2003