> As for your question on me being a philosopher, there is no harm in me
> admitting that I have some competency in philosophy, but to appreciate the
> arguments, you would need to understand the literature in economics and
> organizations, not philosophy. That said, many of the world's leading
> philosophers (and religious thinkers) - Moses, Jesus, Mohammed, the Buddha -
> would most likely not follow this argument either, and so if it is any
> consolation, you and Deepa are in good company.
> In fact, I wish those philosophers were around so that I could convert them.
> My process of conversion is an amazingly enjoyable one and is nothing more
> than the process of Gnana yoga ("the yoga of knowledge"). I would especially
> enjoy converting Jesus to my way of thinking, I think.Please, please, tell me you are joking. (Irony, essence of humour, as you so very helpfully explained in another thread.) Seriously, don't you think one of the primary requirements for being able to convince people is to have them at least understand you? Judging by your prose, I'd say the only hope you have of convincing those "philosophers" (yes, the ones who would "likely not follow your argument" anyway) would be by totally confusing them with jargon. Personally, I wouldn't find that an altogether "amazingly enjoyable experience". > P.S. This is another overarching theoretical response and so one is unable > to strictly observe the top-post consideration (it has always been a > consideration in Internet forums, not a requirement) since the theoretical > considerations are paramount. Sorry, I must be terribly dumb, but I don't even understand something as simple as your reason for top-posting. Are you, by any chance, trying to say something like, "Some responses necessarily need to be top-posted so as not to break the flow of the argument"? That's something I can understand, and maybe even agree with. Or are you instead saying that an "overarching theoretical response" (whatever that is) necessarily needs to be top-posted? Venky (the Second). PS: I don't think Eugen meant one needs an understanding of philosophy to appreciate your argument. I read that instead as a comment on how unnecessarily verbose your prose is and how convoluted and jargon-laden your arguments are. PPS: No, I will not be checking "the List" for a response.
