[Sigia-l] Classification is an essential skill

[Jonathan Broad]

On Sat, 2003-02-01 at 23:15, Derek R wrote:

> Just how is it you can disagree with Gerry  -- and -- claim to agree
> with him? 
> 
> 
> >| Gerry said *completely different*

That answered your question before you asked it, but evidently you
didn't understand.  You're truly making a mountain of a molehill, but
that's kind of what we're talking about too (how is a mountain different
from a molehill?), so...

> 
> If something (i.e. a 'view') is different -- it is different (wholly
> so). What makes you think one would believe you mean 'similar' by use of
> the word 'different?' That is not *how* the word is used. Use of any
> qualifying word is already 'complete.' (i.e. What completely makes
> completely you completely think completely one completely would
> completely believe completely you completely mean completely 'similar'
> completely by completely use completely of completely the completely
> word completely 'different?')

Things and their attributes, things and their attributes...

There are two apples sitting in front of you.  They look identical. 
Yet, by your reasoning, they are completely different.  Why?  Because
they are not in the same place at the same time (I did say *two* after
all).  

Only in the rarefied language of mathematics does it make sense to
conflate "different" with "completely different", because of the
axiomatic nature of numbers. It's equally true, but tautological, to say
that 0 and 1 are different, or completely different.

Now say that one apple is a Granny Smith and the other is a Red
Delicious.  They are clearly different--different color, different
taste, slightly different chemical composition, in addition to being
"two".  Now put a watermelon on the table.  Suddenly the apples
appear...overwhelmingly similar, don't they?  Now put a monkey on the
table...and you've discovered fruit (and categorization,
*incidentally*).

Difference and similarity are relative, and related.  But when Gerry
said "completely different" world views, he was saying that it doesn't
make sense to treat humans as apples and oranges, if you catch my drift.

We humans are mostly similar, if only barely, and certainly not by all
measures.  The proof is the pudding--language, which bridges with
(relative) ease our idiosyncracies.  We are all apples, of some variety.

Do you see now how similar the words "different" and "similar" are?  And
yet why it's important, *in common usage*, to have two different words
to describe the same set of relationships, depending on context?

> In other words, you can ignore the qualifier 'completely' as a *useless
> addition* which is only presented as a hyperbolic, authority-invoking
> syntax, disproportionate to circumstance. Do you understand yet? Or if
> you prefer -- do you 'completely' understand yet? What's the difference,
> besides hubris?

Hubris, indeed!  Do you understand how you are indicting yourself with
this hyperbole?  See also your "disproportionate" repetition of
"completely" in the previous paragraph.

I was just making a very pedestrian qualification to *your*
characterization of Gerry as "a maniac" for believing that humans are
similar. And "similar", in this context, means the same thing as being
*anything but* totally different--which is what Gerry was saying,
regardless of your odd contradiction.  

Was that responsive enough?  You didn't give me much to respond to,
more's the pity.

<next quoted out of order because it's personal quibbling>

> 	 
> >| I'm going to keep 'calling' you out
> >| until you respond, Derek. :)

Incidentally, *very* bad form to alter quoted material, even
(especially?) for rhetorical effect.  No quotes in the original.


> I would like to respond to you Jonathan, but your responses are not
> responsive. Do you understand? 

How do you justify this statement to yourself?  I've responded, in
detail, to every relatively ascertainable proposition you've put forth
about categorization and classification.  You are speaking with
philosophical airs, so I am responding in kind.

> 99% of what you say to me I have already covered in detail. Or you
> resort to name-dropping big-time academic authors people may have heard
> of, but nobody understands, or cares to. 

This is pretty funny--do you not recall the first contributions you made
to this list a year ago, where you started quoting Bordieu (that one
passage...not a particularly clear one, either) obsessively?

I like philosophy.  I use it in my day to day life.  The best advice a
philosophy professor ever gave me was "if you can't explain it to your
Aunt Jane, you either don't understand it yourself or it's not worth
knowing."  

I don't idly drop names (or quotes) as a substitute for argument or
elucidation -- go ahead and contradict me.  If I reference someone, it
is after or just before I have rendered their thoughts on a subject in
plain(ish) english, for further reference if interested.  I also "drop
names" when I'm basically citing someone's concepts in passing, so as
not to pass off another's thoughts as my own.  

These are both practices I'd recommend to you.

> In truth I feel your comments
> boil-down to some personal satisfaction gained by 'calling' me names.
> Selah. No loss, no gain.

I've called you no names (and if I did, I apologize, as you should do to
Christina and Lou, for starters).  I assure you I bear you no ill will.

I'm being strident in my arguments, though, because to be frank I don't
think you know what you're talking about.  At least your posts are often
laden with what I see as philosophical error or misjudgment, in addition
to a truly ironical absolutist tone.

It's perfectly within my rights to respond to this, and I have, in
detail.  If not for your benefit, selah, then hopefully to provide
context (and refutations) for the benefit of others on the list.


Jonathan Broad