| | Robert, you and I, we don't seem to get along very well. Perhaps you have taken me to be sarcastically disagreeing with you, and not just disagreeing with you (this is a problem with typed correspondence but, even if relevant here -- I would only be willing to take half the blame for it).
To your comments about me (about who l am, or what I do, or what I stand for), which you've gathered from this short interaction with me, I would like to add something (I'm presuming that this is an instance where I would be allowed to speak up for myself -- instead of just taking the accusations that you are willing to shove up my ass). I would like to add that I do, admittedly, err on the rationalistic side of a perfect integration and implementation (of Objectivism -- into my life). I can tell if and when things are perfect (which is both a benefit and a curse), and I can tell that I've been imperfect, and even 'how much' I've been imperfect (how far I've missed the mark).
What you say of me misses the mark. In a knee-jerk reaction, you've accused me of knee-jerk reacting. Robert, one thing I don't have (or want) is control over you -- or your reactions to things in life. I don't want control of whether you are allowed to speak about something. I don't want control over whether you are allowed to carry a discussion wherever it leads. Note how this makes me, fundamentally, different from notable Randroids of which you spoke -- who disavow others and schism.
What I would like from you -- and I can only request it, I cannot force it on you -- is to weight any conclusions/judgments about me as a person (ie. moral judgments), more heavily than you would weight judgment of mere arguments that spring from my head. Trash my arguments first and, if successful, then -- and ONLY THEN -- trash me. The "successful" argument-trashing is an important stop-gap that allows for me to explain myself. You have here acted as if you had no interest in allowing me a chance to explain my behavior.
You may say that I merely did the same to you (and that I "did it" first!), but what was missed was my subtle wording -- complete with its own stop-gap for prevention of escalation in rancor:
I said ...
===================
I don't see much room for any lengthy discussion
===================
... which breaks down (under pressure from opposition) to ...
===================
"I don't see" (I'm sharing MY view, not THE view)
"much room for any lengthy discussion" (which is specifically not: "NO room for ANY discussion")
===================
To recap: I respectfully request that you -- in any future interactions with me -- weight moral judgments heavier than the judgments about the arguments/ideas.
Ed
(Edited by Ed Thompson
on 10/02, 6:25pm)
|
|
