Hello. I presume the resemblance of conversation is to be distinguished with an
alternative, but is it a real conversation? Why object only to "drivel"? Let's
just admit that it all comes down to the words we choose, if words can be objected
to at all. But there's more than just words (in words?). We don't want to be
snared by a boot, instead of a fish, at the end of our fishing line, as we don't
want to be sucked into a vacuous pit at the end of our journey to find an ultimate
answer. My eyes are squinting at "infinitely broad category" and I'll just take
your word for it and smile. What's so convincing in an alternative (e.g., real
conversation) is that it is just better than the resemblance of a conversation. I
don't know. Hmmm. But we don't ever see a conversation, i.e., in books (nor in
many of our neighborhoods with what language we are trying to adopt). Maybe we
need a better word for this than conversation, like research? So, we are looking
for posts that are performed in research. Why should we not call this research a
resemblance of conversation? So, it isn't really a difference between good and
lousy conversation, rather, between the resemblance and alternative conversation.
I have to agree that real conversations are better than their resemblance. If we
can adopt Foucalt's approach to nearly everything under the broad category of
discipline, why can we not articulate it?
Peter Rugh
Philosophy Undergrad
Indiana University
malgosia askanas previously wrote:
> > I find the academic posts borring, unless they have an agruement
> > of some sort, why hoistility to posts which resemble conversation?
>
> "Posts which resemble conversation" is a bit general, no? The question is:
> do they resemble good conversation or lousy conversation? Wiiliam J King used
> the word "drivel"; I don't think one can unequivocally or even otherwise
> infer from this that what he objects to is the infinitely broad category
> you posit. He objects to drivel. I find it hard to disagree with that.
>
> -m
alternative, but is it a real conversation? Why object only to "drivel"? Let's
just admit that it all comes down to the words we choose, if words can be objected
to at all. But there's more than just words (in words?). We don't want to be
snared by a boot, instead of a fish, at the end of our fishing line, as we don't
want to be sucked into a vacuous pit at the end of our journey to find an ultimate
answer. My eyes are squinting at "infinitely broad category" and I'll just take
your word for it and smile. What's so convincing in an alternative (e.g., real
conversation) is that it is just better than the resemblance of a conversation. I
don't know. Hmmm. But we don't ever see a conversation, i.e., in books (nor in
many of our neighborhoods with what language we are trying to adopt). Maybe we
need a better word for this than conversation, like research? So, we are looking
for posts that are performed in research. Why should we not call this research a
resemblance of conversation? So, it isn't really a difference between good and
lousy conversation, rather, between the resemblance and alternative conversation.
I have to agree that real conversations are better than their resemblance. If we
can adopt Foucalt's approach to nearly everything under the broad category of
discipline, why can we not articulate it?
Peter Rugh
Philosophy Undergrad
Indiana University
malgosia askanas previously wrote:
> > I find the academic posts borring, unless they have an agruement
> > of some sort, why hoistility to posts which resemble conversation?
>
> "Posts which resemble conversation" is a bit general, no? The question is:
> do they resemble good conversation or lousy conversation? Wiiliam J King used
> the word "drivel"; I don't think one can unequivocally or even otherwise
> infer from this that what he objects to is the infinitely broad category
> you posit. He objects to drivel. I find it hard to disagree with that.
>
> -m