nimh wrote:Hi George,
I gotta chime in with Snood here -
I dont agree with his example -
But I have also seen you postulate too often about how the world just is as you think it is, to accept your protestations here. Your convictions are every bit as rock-ribbed in certainty, your confidence in the rightness of your conclusions every bit as self-satisfied as Cyclo's. There's a reason why in my "taxonomy of A2K conservatives" I put you in the circle of "dogmatists" - if close to the edge of "intellectuals" ;-).
Interesting. Were they a priori postulates, or were they conclusions, or opinions? The differences are vital, and how clearly they were (or weren't) labeled appears to be the central issue here. It appears that "certainty" itself is suspect in your interpretation of all this. However, such certainty if it occurs in a clearly labeled opinion that is not accompanied by an attempt to persuade ought not to offend anyone. In a conclusion, the merits, or defects of certainty depend entirely on the arguments & facts offered to support it. In a prediction certainty is merely absurd (and I rarely do that - though the others you cited do it regularly). Here, it seems to me, that certainty in any form bothers you - particularly if it is imbedded in prose that attempts to incorporate all the key complexities involved and do so with completeness and clarity. I can't help but suspect that the same certainty expressed in a more conversational, or even less accurate and complete, style might have a much reduced effect on you. Indeed I can recall numerous such cases apparently unnoticed by you.
I saw your taxonomy, but was a bit confused by the vagaries of the geometric relationships implied (or not implied) in the Venn diagram, and the unanswered questions of what the categories really meant and whether they together constituted the whole ground. Finally, I would be very disinclined to classify so many people that way and in so many dimensions, thinking the effort a little presumptuous. Still, I suppose I should be grateful for your allowing me to even approach the zone of ?'intellectuals'. The thing WAS interesting though.
nimh wrote:I'll give you the bit about inserting "I believe" ahead of your postulations, at least often enough. And that's laudable. But especially if the underlying, highly ideologised certainties are every bit as unassailable, is that really much more than just being more sophisticated in your wording?
What is the alternative?? Shall I conclude that a more careless expression of the proposition in question, unaccompanied by any disclaimer such as "I believe
" would then pass your test merely because it was less clearly stated? I believe this is exactly the case with several of the posters you cited and find no merit in your assertions about them.
nimh wrote: I have seen any number of posts in which you certainly put forward your take on the situation, when it comes to the nature of (Old) Europe versus America for example, with the intonation of speaking the "verifiable, eternal truth".
Probably so, because I believe this strongly and am therefore likely more given to overstatement on the matter: also very likely (it seems to me) because you don't like the statements themselves.
nimh wrote:I guess I can't help myself reacting because I'm in the middle. I am old enough to appreciate the way you are more polite and restrained in the way you express yourself, even in the face of cocksure stupidity and classless rudeness; and to find the brash and relentless young male's self-confidence of a Diest or Cyclo off-putting (and this is not purely about age, I have it with O'Bill too sometimes). You have class; and overall your patience and commitment to civil dialogue is admirable. But I'm also young enough to find the dismissive putdowns of the purported young bucks' foolishness, postulated with the often somewhat pompous self-satisfaction of a knowing patriarch, equally grating. I dare say that your "own failings in this area" are not necessarily limited to becoming impatient with "over inflated self-importance", as rather engaging in it yourself too ...
Hard to criticize it without doing a bit of it yourself. In truth in several cases my intent was exactly that - to confront an ill-informed belligerent bully with a little (and better composed) dose of his own medicine - and hopefully to shut him up.
Cyclo is a bit different. I have met him and he is an amiable, well intentioned young guy who is interested in what is going on, thinks for himself, and who when seriously challenged will take another look and even consider new information. More importantly, he can take what he puts out. He is far more given to overstatement than I, but he is well worth the effort in correcting these excesses.
nimh wrote:Moreover, to digress a bit, the way you wisely dismiss much of the silly, ephemeral quality of the day-to-day political hypes (unless it's a hype that plays into your own prejudices, like "bittergate"), often also kind of leaves you up in rarefied air, where all that counts is the greater story, the overall sweep of history. Since all the little stuff that could potentially debunk one's ideologically inspired, broad judgment of an issue (details like polling numbers and such trivia) has been largely cast aside along with the day-to-day polit-drama, this risks yielding a stilted perspective, in which the big picture one discerns always just happens to end up confirming one's broad ideological vision. And where said vision is applied on pretty much every question, regardless of local or thematic quirks.
I'm not sure I follow your whole meaning here. I am very interested in the basic themes of human history (at least as I see them) and tend to make and express my points in that context - probably to excess to one whose focus is elsewhere. You have an analogous intense interest in the play of dynamic events - and, for example, the polling data that attempts to describe it all - and similarly tend to focus there, sometimes to excess as viewed by some others (like me, for example).
I have been around for a long time and I have done and seen a lot of things, from flying fighters to operating ships, the academic world and running businesses (and even there in things ranging from nuclear plant operations to construction and environmental consulting); and while doing it worked & lived in very diverse and different environments - a lot more than most people I meet and get to know - and I'm still at it. That doesn't mean mine doesn't stink, but it has given me a very good BS detector - to wrap things up on a scatological note.
