Dear Ken,

Of course the post was intended for ALL of those involved in the  
debate, including you! It has been a pleasure to read them.

Thank you!


Lily





On 31.1.2008, at 13.33, Ken Friedman wrote:

> Dear Terry, Ranjanm, Lily, and Klaus,
>
> Thanks for these posts. I value your comments.
>
> One aspect of this is an appreciation for the debate -- since I  
> can't see how Klaus could have debated himself, I'm hoping your  
> comments were intended for both of us.
>
> Klaus. I seem to irritate you these days. Could it be that because  
> of this, you don't take the time to read what I have written? I did  
> not accuse you of logic-chopping. I accused MYSELF in a facetious  
> comment.
>
> As a passing joke in a longer post, I accused myself of logic- 
> chopping on Wednesday 23 January. (Posted 21:49, titled "Re: Is all  
> writing fiction?") In the post, I proposed three answers to a  
> question. I poked fun at my first answer, writing "The first answer  
> is a version of Medieval logic-chopping." I was the logic-chopper  
> here and I entered a guilty plea before abandoning that line of  
> argument.
>
> While I may be guilty of the character flaws you accuse me of, but  
> you've also accused me of crimes I did not commit.
>
> This post is about the debate. Since you called my character into  
> question, it concerns character
> and feelings.
>
> As far as I am concerned, you are a first-rate thinker and scholar.  
> Even so, I don't agree with you on everything. Robust debate does  
> not cut off possibilities. It opens them. Debate opens possibility  
> as long as each of us is free to speak. Each of us IS free to speak  
> as we wish on the list. I feel as though your character critique --  
> like Teena's comments on my motives -- is a demand that I accept  
> your views or remain silent. This cuts off possibilities.
>
> If you do a content analysis -- an area of your expertise -- you  
> will find I have articulated strong views forcefully. If you  
> analyze my posts, I doubt that you will find personal accusations.  
> You will find is statements where I thought you to be wrong,  
> incorrect, or mistaken in some of your assertions. That is  
> different to an accusation against your person.
>
> Like you, I've had many off-list comments. Apparently, everyone who  
> writes to you agrees with you. I'm not so lucky. I also get notes  
> from people who agree with you. They want me to realize that I am a  
> worthless debater, a rigid dogmatist, and an objectivist hiding my  
> opinions behind the authority of the dictionary. Happily for me,  
> these notes are balanced by those who write to say that I'm a  
> serious thinker and a nice fellow.
>
> Among these, some criticize you. This is their privilege. I won't  
> post their views to the list. Anyone who wants to criticize you is  
> free to do it -- without my help. I hold to my good opinion of you  
> while disagreeing with you on the issues we have debated here.
>
> Jonas's post seemed like an good moment to take a break, so I did.  
> Now that the subject of the debate comes up again -- with your  
> implicit critique of me -- I'll add my two cents.
>
> I'm glad that our colleagues value the debate. Among the good  
> things people said about both of us here and in off-list notes is  
> that they welcomed the kind of debate they rarely get to hear or  
> witness. Many people work in design schools or university  
> departments where culture, custom, or majority opinion constrain  
> them to conformity or silence. The great virtue of the PhD-Design  
> discussion list is that it afford us the opportunity for a seminar  
> debate. That sometimes means a sharp exchange of views when two  
> people have strong opinions. Anyone with an appreciation for the  
> history of ideas knows that good ideas can be forged this way as  
> well as through open-ended agreement on possibilities.
>
> Many list members share Jonas's view that the debate was boring. A  
> dear friend and a scholar whom I respect deeply wrote me off-list  
> that the debate was so lacking in entertainment value that it would  
> be more interesting to watch boards warp. I'm sure I'm guilty here,  
> too.
>
> Nevertheless, I did not withdraw from the debate because we bored  
> Jonas. I withdrew because I am fond of you as a person, and I felt  
> bad about the tone of our interaction. I felt sad that you  
> misconstrued an argument as a personal accusation, and it seemed to  
> me that there was no way to conduct a forthright debate without  
> offending you. I'd be perfectly happy to go on boring Jonas, but he  
> offered us a way out. I thought it was good advice and a good time  
> to stop.
>
> Wolfgang Pauli used to dismissal work he did not respect by saying,  
> "This is so bad it's not even wrong." I'm prepared to be told I'm  
> wrong when the person who holds me wrong is ready to make a case  
> for his or her views on the case and not in terms of my person.
>
> As for my rhetorical style, I suppose I become more engaged than I  
> should. I've read too much Melville, too much Shakespeare, and too  
> much Luther. For this, I can only apologize.
>
> My two cents.
>
> Ken
>