Nor do I buy the idea that ET in general is hostile to discussion of personal experience, consciousness, etc. I asked Fran for some evidence to support her implied cliam that there was such general hostility - no answer.
Your answer is the evidence, brutal pedantic skepticism is silencing when you demand concrete proofs that only exist in tone.
But... :-)) keep to the Fen Causeway
And Ted I do have proof, but it is in form of e-mails of other users here, which I am not going to disclose, unless these people want to repeat here themselves what they wrote to me.
And I did not respond to your demand for proof, because you give me the feeling that you are not interested in sharing. It feels like a Professor asking for homework, which he then will judge and validate or disproof.
Well, I am not your student Ted! and one of the luxuries of becoming older is not having to comply anymore. I love to share, but I resent being judged.
And as to writing my own diaries - you know even though you might think the Salon is nothing - it is time consuming and doesn't leave me much time to write diaries, besides working full time and also having sort of a life outside of ET.
Fran, as I suggested in my REQUEST to you, some emails, from SOME people to SOME of YOUR comments/diaries don't prove a GENERAL hostility in ET. I'm sure there are a few intolerant people here, but I don't think it's typical. Also, because you, quite reasonably, don't feel able to cite the emails, we can't tell if they were reasonable, gently mocking, made some valid points, or were just stupid and nasty.
"demand" is emotive language - it was a request. I don't know why you assume I'm not interested in sharing and here my status is just that of a fellow contributor, and contributors frequently ask others to justify claims they have made.
I love to share, but I resent being judged.
Any judgment is not of you but of your claim and possibly of any evidence there might be for them.
I have the greatest respect for the work you do on Salon (even if I suggested Le Carré instead of the Norwegian composer :-))and am well aware of how much time it must take and I thank you for it.
Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
brutal pedantic skepticism
What an an absurd caricature - of a reasonable request for some evidence to support an accusation that there was general hostility to discussion of personal experience, consciousness, etc. in ET. There is nothing "silencing" about it and if its a matter of some vague "tone" which some people just feel is there, then they can say that and we'll just have to agree to disagree. Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
Fran admits she distrusts your motives in your responses, I would imagine you have realised by now that I share a similar mistrust. I have said to others in similar situations, "You don't care to be right, you just want to win. And it's not helpful."
If you peruse the Open Thread last Friday you will see that Fran raised an issue about the relative lack of female participation on ET and one of the issues that came up was that of "silencing". And here you are, not only providing a classic demonstration of the privilege that leads to silencing, but are suggesting that when I point this out I am being absurd...qed
It's all about tone, Ted. keep to the Fen Causeway
I suggest this has gone far enough.
I know I am robust (I don't strenuous quite means what you think it does) in my defence, but rarely in offense. keep to the Fen Causeway
You are, of course entitled to your opinions, as am I.
Well that's a relief :-)
How richly ironic, I question whether there is a hostile attitude to personal issues, consciousness, etc. and I get hostile personal attacks questioning my motives and attitudes. It seems there is evidence here for Colman's claim :-) :
I'll claim there's pretty general hostility to a sceptical view on these things. And I have evidence, but I can't present it.
To adopt this personal approach for a moment (sorry afew), I think your hostility, Helen, might well be motivated by the fact that I have questioned some of your more generalised assertions and asked for some evidence - how "brutal" and "silencing" of me ! And usually you don't provide any. The last time questioned one of your comments you adopted the ad hominem approach you use here, and accused me of "wilful circularity". When I asked where I had been guilty of that - how mean of me to make such a "demand" ! :-) you were uncharacteristically silent - ah, my fault of course :-)
If you peruse the Open Thread last Friday you will see that Fran raised an issue about the relative lack of female participation on ET
If YOU peruse it you'll see that I participated, and one female agreed with one of my general points, relevant here:
Re: Questions to women! (none / 0) [Ted] "I welcome all kinds of diaries, but if you include some general claims about the world expect to have them challenged" BINGO! by poemless
BINGO!
by poemless
... and one of the issues that came up was that of "silencing". And here you are, not only providing a classic demonstration of the privilege that leads to silencing, but are suggesting that when I point this out I am being absurd...qed
What "privilege" ? Oh right, I'm male :-) Actually Fran has not been silenced, so your QED doesn't work, and the claim that merely requesting evidence for claims is "silencing" IS absurd. Unfortunately she also chooses to attack my supposed attitudes and motives.
It's all about tone, Ted.
No, it's not, but both you and Fran might raise the tone by sticking to the issues rather than indulging in ad hominem attacks - or do they come under the "personal issues" supposedly outlawed by the technocratic males here ? Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
If YOU peruse it you'll see that I participated, and one female agreed with one of my general points, relevant here:Re: Questions to women! (none / 0) [Ted] "I welcome all kinds of diaries, but if you include some general claims about the world expect to have them challenged" BINGO! by poemless
It gets to the point where one wonders how many people see "welcome" and "challenge" as incompatible. A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith
Well she also gave this a 4 (which I assume indicates approval - or perhaps she just liked being quoted approvingly :-) ) :
Re: Questions to women! (4.00 / 8) [poemless] But if you have something you are passionate about and you think would be beneficial to impart to the world, and a great outlet like ET to use for your medium, go for it. Well said. Fran, if someone tries to say your personal experience can be disproved - that's their problem. But if you presented your personal experience as proving something general, they are entitled to question that. You would only need to back up your report on your own experience with links to evidence if you were claiming some general significance. If not - as poemless says - "go for it".
[poemless] But if you have something you are passionate about and you think would be beneficial to impart to the world, and a great outlet like ET to use for your medium, go for it.
Well said.
Fran, if someone tries to say your personal experience can be disproved - that's their problem. But if you presented your personal experience as proving something general, they are entitled to question that. You would only need to back up your report on your own experience with links to evidence if you were claiming some general significance. If not - as poemless says - "go for it".
and others who gave it a 4 included metavision and fran. Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
If you have an argument to make, use your own words.
I think those who make general assertions about the world should expect to have them challenged. That does not imply all assertions are wrong.
I think people should be encouraged to write about their personal experiences. I do not think personal experiences can or even should be challenged in the same way.
And most of all, I don't think MY OPINION is proof of anything one way or another.
Oh, and I will add that it appears to the casual observer that some female diarists have been asked to contribute more, have been assured that their contributions are welcome, and you guys are trying to make it all about yourselves. Anyone is free to comment, but it not a matter of rules, but tact and perspective. I mean, Fran asked all the women to comment, and the thread became dominated by men. Please, sometimes it is best to try to understand someone's attempts outside of how they relate to you. There is something called Active Listening. I find it absent in some of these conversations. The fact that I see a pattern of female posters having to ask to be able to speak for themselves is deeply disturbing to me. "Pretending that you already know the answer when you don't is not actually very helpful." ~Migeru.
I think those who make general assertions about the world should expect to have them challenged.
I'm glad you've made your view about that clear.
That does not imply all assertions are wrong.
Obviously not.
Again we agree about that.
... Fran asked all the women to comment, and the thread became dominated by men.
And that is entirely the fault of the men ?
cherrypicked some random quotes of mine and have me debating myself
Nuh uh, flip-flopper!
;) Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin
Both in the diary and in a comment made before this erupted I commented that I felt I had put myself on the line and made myself very vulnerable with writing this diary. I wrote this with the naive intent of wanting to suggest and inform and invite others to share their ideas about this subject, not to have mine or other contributions trashed just cos we can't furnish concrete proofs in sufficient detail to satisfy interrogators whose motives seem unclear.
This diary has 27 or so comments at this time. Only 3 or 4 seem to be on the subject I wrote about. Right now, I'm seriously regretting having written it. I'm sorry if I'm being over-sensitive and showing all the signs of being a drama queeen but I had thought I'd made my sensitivity about the subject plain at the time of writing.
You carry on. I'm done here keep to the Fen Causeway
... While I do not recommend that all college undergraduates be required to take a course on rhetroic, I do think that they should be required to take a course that alerts them to the power of that art to win on style arguments that should loose on substance. http://www.eurotrib.com/?op=displaystory;sid=2008/10/18/55252/796
... While I do not recommend that all college undergraduates be required to take a course on rhetroic, I do think that they should be required to take a course that alerts them to the power of that art to win on style arguments that should loose on substance.
http://www.eurotrib.com/?op=displaystory;sid=2008/10/18/55252/796
... not to have mine or other contributions trashed just cos we can't furnish concrete proofs in sufficient detail to satisfy interrogators whose motives seem unclear.
Where has anybody attacked what you wrote ? So I don't get the point about vulnerability, apart from trying to get the sympathy vote. Discussions often veer off in ways not expected by the authors of diaries.
Now we get more caricature - not only is a simple request for some evidence - to someone else in another place - to support a claim about general hostility in ET to certain kinds of subjects: "brutal pedantic skepticism" and "silencing" - now it's also to "trash" something and "interrogation" - where did I leave my jackboots ?
Talk about rhetoric ! At least now my motives are just "unclear" - though clearly they are suspicious.
"Drama queen" - I couldn't possibly comment :-) Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
Where is ARGeezer when we need him ?
ET is not, has never been hostile to a discussion of personal experience of consciousness. However, it has become hostile to anyone who wants to subject claims about such things to rational analysis.
