I disagree with your interpretation of his point but we can let Robin decide if he cares to. Although he objects to my characterization of "likeability" to describe the personality qualities he uses to determine how aligned someone is to the POV of "reality" he clearly does list the traits for both sides.
He has applied this criteria many times in our exchanges. It is part of the personal attack style that you are also a big fan of. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@...> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@> > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > <snip> > > > > I would love for anyone to rephrase Robin's thoery to show > > > > that they understood it better than I have. Perhaps someone > > > > can offer answers to my objections that don't include an > > > > assumption about my personal motivation and flaws, but > > > > actually sticks to the points themselves. > > > > > > For the most part, the answers to your objections are > > > simply that your objections are irrelevant. It isn't > > > crystal clear whether they're irrelevant because you > > > genuinely haven't understood Robin's theory, or because > > > you were attempting to mislead and confuse about a > > > potentially extremely useful approach to getting to the > > > truth of a matter. Probably needless to say, I strongly > > > suspect the latter, given how disastrous it would be for > > > you for folks to have a reliable means to discern the > > > truth. > > > > M: Right, I am against truth and kittens. > > Don't know about kittens, but truth has never been your > friend as long as I've known you. > > > > Robin illustrates (hyperbolically) the nature of the > > > irrelevance of Curtis's objections: > > > > > > Robin: Is that our bus coming now, Curtis? > > > Curtis: I did so kill that mosquito, Robin. STFU. Ad > > > hominem. > > > > > > It's not all that hyperbolic, actually. At one point > > > in their dialogue, Curtis went off on a long > > > disquisition about how personal likeability is not > > > necessarily an indication of trustworthiness, as if > > > this were something Robin had proposed. It wasn't. It > > > had nothing whatsoever to do with anything Robin had > > > said. Jaw-droppingly irrelevant. > > > > M: And your attempt at bullshittery is equally jaw dropping > > Well, let's see whether I was bullshitting. > > > Robin making the point Judy missed: > > No, Curtis, I didn't miss it, any more than I missed your > objection to what you go on to quote, or Robin's response > to your objection (which you do not, of course, quote), > pointing out that "likeability" has nothing to do with > anything he's proposing: > > "WTF does 'likeability' have to do with truth--except that it > is a better and more real and more satisfying experience when > one's first person ontology becomes more responsive and > affected by the POV of reality? Objectification of one's first > person subjective perspective is always available, Curtis--to > everyone.... > > "This [my theory] only has to do with the objectification of > subjectivity, Curtis: likeableness does not come in here. It > may somewhere be a natural byproduct of something to do with > the effect of this theory in some way. But no, Curtis, get > rid of this likeableness thing. It does not enter into the > theory at all.... > > "We are talking about first person ontology only. And first > person ontologies are not necessarily all attractive. It is > not a question of likeableness, Curtis; it is a question of > aligning oneself with something within reality which can > make one's subjective self more aware of where the truth or > reality of something is." > > > <THE ENTIRETY OF THE VALIDITY OF MY POST COMES DOWN TO BEING ABLE TO SOMEHOW > > FORCE THAT THIRD POINT OF VIEW TO MAKE ITSELF EVIDENT TO US, KNOWN TO US. > > And > > then to see which person seems to be making more contact with that third > > point > > of view--given that it is, according to the hypothesis, the point of view of > > REALITY. And if this third point of view is always extant in any given > > interpersonal circumstance, then when it begins to have an influence, that > > influence will be decisive, since if one of the two persons is more in > > accordance with the third point of view, it will mean that that person > > commands > > more support, poise, persuasiveness, innocence--and the other person, whose > > point of view begins to be in opposition to that third point of view, will > > exhibit signs of resistance, pugnacity, defensiveness, aggression, violent > > subjectivity.> > > > > M: He is using subjectively assessed personality traits all > > of which are unlikeable as indications to a person's alignment > > with reality. > > No, he isn't. You've completely missed the point. See > Robin's response quoted above (did you miss it when you > read his post, Curtis?). > > The rest of this is just Curtis expanding on his already > refuted objection. I.e., it's more bullshittery. > > > > > I pointed out that this causes two problems, it is another subjective > > evaluation and none of these are epistemologically tied to someone being > > less correct about something. > > > > How do you evaluate a person's "innocence" and "poise" to indicate they > > have more support of reality. > > > > This is such a key part of his system that he has used to evaluate posters > > here that I question that you really gave his 3 posts a good read. My > > guess is that you were so keen to jump on the ad hominems you weren't > > paying attention to how he structured his argument. Your focus on that > > aspect of the post in this and a previous post reveals your subjective bias > > in all this. You can't keep your eye on the philosophical ball if you > > sense a chance to insult. Robin suffers from the same problem. >
