(non-hear)rings
March 29th, 2008, search relatedRelated posts :: No related posts
Jud is sure concerning Joe’s slippery gameplaying:
> It is obvious that Joe is running rings around skinhead Heideggerienism
Well, it seems to me, a mere musician, that neither Anthony nor I (nor
MichaelE earlier) have been exemplifying or employing any kind of what you
call “Heideggerienism” [sic, surely] in our respective dealings with Joe, so
it is hard to see how he could be considered as “running rings around
skinhead Heideggerienism”. The point that all of us (including BobG) have
been making in attempting dialogue with Joe (in my view) is that he appears
not to listen (philosophically) to others, but instead continues to, er,
continue in banging the same old drums no matter what the response; note,
this is nothing to do with the actual views expressed (say, concerning
impossibly infinitely dense taxonomies/sets (of beings-as-a-whole), or the
difference between Heidegger and Descartes in thinking the world, etc), just
a frustrating experience of talking to someone who appears to virtually
ignore what one says repeatedly and moreover claims repeatedly, e.g., that
one, in mentioning a problem in Joe’s setups, that *his* problem (that one
has identified for discussion) is one’s problem and merely then repeats the
very critique one had made of his original assertions and setups…
He no more runs rings around anyone’s philosophical discourses than you do,
rather you both appear to live entirely in your own (different) rings,
orbiting your philosphical selves repetitively to the point of utter boredom
for others (eventually, after trying and trying to actually have a genuinely
two-way discussion).
regards
michaelP
ps: I must say, nonetheless, that I have enjoyed something of Joe’s input to
the list, but once a certain point is reached the enjoyment moves inexorably
to frustration, then boredom, then nothing.
