[FoRK] Agreeing to agree

Lion Kimbro <lionkimbro at gmail.com> on Wed Aug 22 08:46:57 PDT 2007

On 8/22/07, Jeff Bone <jbone at place.org> wrote:
> On Aug 22, 2007, at 1:03 AM, Lion Kimbro wrote:
> >   This isn't good...
> I figured this would provoke almost precisely this reaction from you...
> ;-)


  Well thank you, Jeff Bone;
  You are a scholar and a gentlemen.

  While I was replying, I was repeatedly having to delete typing
  spasms, on the order of, "This is just the sort of crap theory
  that sdw would lap up," and, "This is only the sort of things that
  fanboys like sdw could accept" and so on.

  I recognize that there is a mathematical reasoning at work
  behind the paper, and can conceive that it has some material
  relevance to some problems, some where.

  Mathematical reasoning, assuming that the symbolic replacements
  are properly made without error, can never be wrong.

  The problem is that untrained eyes will read the results, spoken
  in philosopher-ese, and then grossly believe that the conclusions
  apply to the ordinary world of daily existence, where people
  (truthfully, and justifiably,) "agree to disagree," and so on.
  Even more scary, many times *trained* eyes will read the results,
  spoken in philosopher-ese, and then grossly believe that the
  conclusions apply to the ordinary world of daily existence.
  (This is the story of economics.)

  The work is (as sdw has pointed out,) "accessible," which means
  that I can whip out some cognitive microscopes, and figure out,
  painstakingly, what all their symbols mean, and verify the truth of
  the things for myself.  I am not going to take the time to do this,
  since I can already tell, "This is a heap of garbage," at least as
  far conclusions regarding disagreements in the material world
  are concerned.

  But by my surface reading of it, I think the one, main, big problem,
  is the complete disrespect for **time** in the paper.

  I'll grant that, if we have the Hyperbolic Time Chamber, (and this is
  a Dragon Ball Z reference;  I've chosen it, to repel sdw from being
  able to take this argument seriously) which we can hop in, and
  talk and discuss for 2,000 years, --  if we had such a thing, and
  could talk inside of it for so long, then I'll grant that we MAAAY
  be able to come to solid agreement on some thing.  (Just take
  for granted "truth-seeking" and honesty.)

  Now why do I say only "may?"  Shouldn't I make a stronger case?
  Shouldn't I, Lion, believer in Democracy and the ability of people of
  people to talk things out amongst themselves, proponent of dialog
  and deliberation NCDD NVC style, Jurgen Habermas fan, think that,
  "everything can be resolved by talking," and that "infinite talking
  will converge on mutual agreement?"

  No, I don't.  The reason is, I think that people who are talking are
  going through a very similar process to people who are thinking.
  And the way of thinking, as far as I can tell, is divergence and
  convergence, divergence and convergence, divergence and

  The 2,000 year long discussion, to find the truth of a claim,
  (and perhaps even *any* claim, such as: "What type of truck
  is that that we just saw driving away,") will have a storyline and
  a drama of it's own.  It will become "simulacrum."  The characters
  used in metaphors and arguments will take on lives of their own,
  in the minds of the participants.  Given 2,000 years, and a drive
  to reject agreement to disagree -- Small minor possibility points
  will have to be explored.  And in those small minor possibility
  points, universes of possibility and meaning will be found in them.
  If one person accepts, for example, some rejection of simple
  memory, and the other believes in holding on to those memories,
  and then the conversation turns to religious memories ("Did Jesus
  walk on water 2,000 years ago?"), then the fullness of discussion
  will have to absorb an even larger problem.  The people discussing
  will find significant ideas relating to truth, justice, beauty, and so on,
  in those signs, and start to advocate for their own metaphysical,
  psychological, sociological ideas, and so on, in this attempt to find
  ultimate resolution on the one initial fact, regarding, "Just what
  kind of truck was it."

  By the time 2,000 years of discussion is up, no doubt all types of
  fantasy worlds and scenarios will have been explored, and even taken
  on lives of their own.

  This is some part of my rejection of the paper.  The author should
  be dissecting communications, and how it is possible for people to
  *agree,* at all.  He should REALLY be asking questions such as,
  "Is it possible for two people to really agree on something, and what
  can that agreement mean?"

  ...but, I suspect you already knew this, Jeff, and that you're just
  playing cute, by posting this here.  {;D}=

  "Oh, Lion's going to LOVE this one," I hear you cackling madly,
  as you post the URL to the forum.

  -- Lion

More information about the FoRK mailing list