Re: Scrutiny

Lois Shawver (
Sat, 16 Mar 1996 11:50:52 -0800 (PST)


I'm sorry if my notes sounded excessively challenging in my last
note. My purpose is to allow you a chance to clarify your thoughts for
people reading these notes. I think that is best done if I ask questions
that are occasionally a little challenging. If a half-baked criticism
occurs to me I am imagining that it will occur to someone else and that
it would be useful for you to try your hand at answering it as you expand
on what you think. Better that you hear and address that criticism
directly, it seems to me, than people keep it quietly under their hats,
even if the criticism is half-baked. And, sometimes, it might be worth
you taking a second look. I believe you can do so, I hope, without
undermining your system.

You ask me what it is about what you have said that I agree with and what
I disagree with. I hesitate to give this discourse this kind of shift.
My own perspective is much more narrative and postmodern than yours, but
this doesn't prevent me from appreciating Kelley or appreciating what you
have to say. I treat it as another language game, Wittgensteinian that I
am. I have every intention of staying within your language game, your
system of constructs, in order to facilitate your explanation. This is
very different from accepting things you say that do not seem compelling
to me from within your framework, your logos. I hope you can agree with
me on this. If not, you are disqualifying me, as a person coming from a
different perspective. You are saying that unless I start from your
perspective I cannot interact with you in good faith. I hope we agree
that this is wrong. Know that I sometimes even ask you questions when I
THINK I know your answer to, because I want to make sure, and because
I think you need to say one way or another what you think about something
in order to make the best possible statement for your case. The best
possible statement for your case is what is most interesting for all of
us to hear.

On a related matter, I believe, Bill, that rushing to give us this math
will not lead us into your system. You are restricted somewhat by your
medium, and it is difficult here for readers to read long technical
statements. It is much easier to do that from a printed document. Don't
you think? I think your technical statements are further diminished in
usefulness because you are sending your statements as an attachment. (Why
is that?) In sum, there are wonderful dimensions of this medium, but there
are limitations, too. Moreover, we are all pioneers in trying to find a
way to facilitate communication here, to get around the limitations and
exploit the medium for what it is. My efforts here with you are a kind of
pioneering effort of my own in how to do that.

If I can invite you to return to what you were saying before, I wonder if
you would try to explain, again, what you mean by "polarization", I
believe it was "polarization" of constructs. Could you explain with an
example? Would that be a good place for us to sink back into the thick
of your theory?

..Lois Shawver