RE: Restored (and a final story for Luke and Daniel)

So, Jim I critique contrary to my beliefs? I hold to an Objective knowledge
of things, true, But this discussion is not based specifically on what he
says about Derrida, that is just one object that the truth operates with, he
has made consequential statements in other discussions that have a direct
bearing on him and not specifically Derrida or his specific understanding of
Derrida. He does not accept truth in a way that sharing of knowledge etc is
possible yet when it comes to specific knowledge like Derrida we(others)
fail to see 'his' truth, we don't share 'his' knowledge. He doesn't share
his knowledge, fine, but that undermines his rhetorical attacks for others
failures to understand. He has excluded other's ability to understand with
the lower case and then gets 'rhetorically powerful' when they don't. If
John understands Derrida in a way that others don't then lets hear it. I
have asked that several times. I know John O. has read Derrida and has
studied him, fine, but so far, he has no rhetorical ground to stand on in
order to defend Derrida or anything when that ground is the shifting sand of
little t truth. Some people get upset around here because they think this
is a ball game with a meaningless score but that is the inescapable
conclusion when you critique with little t truth as the core of your
rhetoric.
 
Now, there has been no emphatic claims of being better by anyone, but there
definitely have been implications of inferiority, 6 of one or half dozen of
the other. Neither Luke, Robbie, nor I invented big T truth we just
accepted it, it didn't require any unusual amounts of intelligent or
whatever except maybe stooping. But little t truth is a tournament with as
many teams as there are little t truth adherents out there, and each one
standing in the arena has chosen their particular little t for very personal
reasons, ok, if they are right then they get all the glory but if they are
wrong they get all the shame, either way there is no sharing. Is anyone
free of the bane of the little t? no, but like a dog stool in the middle of
the living room floor let's not accept it either.
 
Concerning H man and his entanglement with the Ideal. Idealist get in
trouble when their Idealism remains nothing but an Ideal. Ideals can only
have meaning when we people, persons recognize that the Ideal is personal,
the Ideal is a person.
Daniel

The important thing, I was trying to point is, is what YOU believe. Are your
critiques of John consistent with your own philosophy? I don't think they
are. I think, since you believe in an "objective" knowledge of things, you
should recognize that John O, when it comes to Derrida, has that in ways
others don't. That's all.

Does it make him a better person? Not necessarily. He's not claiming to
be, though.

Jim

-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Thu Jul 17 12:06:02 2003