This attributes an element of mystery to a behavioral quality that is actually quite plain. Why waste time searching for something hidden?
Judy argues to demonstrate argumentative dominati0n. Premises and conclusions are just a means to arrive at further argumentation ... this is her goal-less goal. Her modus is not a search for the "arche of things" and thus "logos" is not the cause of her discourse. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajradhatu@...> wrote: > > > On Feb 5, 2012, at 12:26 PM, Xenophaneros Anartaxius wrote: > > > For example, I had an argument with Judy once, that continued offline. It did not resolve. But I did realise that I was mis-interpreting some things she said to me. I had overlooked some things and was making part of my argument based on an error of perception. But there is an aspect of Judy's style of argumentation that seems hidden to me. There is something underlying that I cannot interpret - I think of it is some kind of emotional thing, which surely could be wrong - but with me and others, I get the feeling that world views are sufficiently skewed, so the responses of either party are sufficiently divergent that neither party is talking about the same thing. > > I think you've touched on a fundamental issue in Judy's style here, as I've noticed the same thing many, many times. It'll have to wait till I have more time. >
