Thanks for all the responses. I appreciate Paul's view, but I don't agree
with Bruce that this thread is a mess. I believe it is an interesting and
healthy thread in an emerging field of inquiry.

It seems that there is room for lengthy contributions. This isn't one of
them. Rather, I want briefly to clarify my views on a few short points.

It didn't seem to me that Bruce Moon flamed anyone. I'm not even sure I
thought his posts were aggressive. I felt he stated fuzzy views, packed
with assertions. He challenged my view with specific questions. I unpacked
the assertions and answered the questions. The only issue of style I raised
involved form. When you challenge someone and assert a view opposing his or
her view, that's a debate. Bruce offered me a challenge and I responded to
the issues. I felt it poor form when he failed to respond to the
substantive content of the response, but instead complained about the
length.

Bruce also raises an issue of form in the last paragraph of his most recent
post. He writes, "if DRS members wish to 'put some contributor right', they
could do it privately." It's not clear to me that anyone is trying to put
anyone else right. I did, however, send Bruce a private post. Since there
was no bounceback, I assumed he received it. To my way of thinking, it was
an invitation to dialogue. He never answered.

As it is, my posts to DRS weren't tomes in the medieval sense of a volume
forming part of a larger work or the modern sense of a large book or
scholarly treatise. If, however, Bruce used the term in the ancient Greek
sense of a "tomos," a section or roll of parchment, a printout can be seen
as a "tomos." I doff my hat to his scholarship.

On interpretation, I disagree. It's one thing to say that we interpret
Dilthey differently. It's another to state that the word "Verstehen" is the
German term for "theory of action." The word means "understanding." One of
our German colleagues should correct me if I'm wrong.

Anyone may say what he or she wishes about what Kuhn meant. We can often
interpret an author better than he himself did. Nevertheless, Kuhn was
clear about what he thought he meant, and what he thought he meant was
contrary to what Bruce felt he meant. Bruce wasn't the first to hold that
misinterpretation. I offered Kuhn's views on the issue. I don't need to
interpret Kuhn on this point and Kuhn didn't need to answer from beyond the
grave. He made it clear in the second edition of the book.

Part of the problem with lumping all of the post-structuralist and
post-modern positions into one grand stew is the tremendous range of
difference in quality of thinking. When Derrida critiques Levi-Strauss, for
example, it's based on a close reading of the work and a clear
understanding of Levi-Strauss's arguments and facts. Derrida's knowledge of
history, of literature, of philosophy is rich and well-informed. Agree with
him or not, you can follow the argument and be challenged. So, too, for
example, the poetic and provocative essays of Virilio. Contrast them, say,
with Lacan or Iragay. These two seem to pull facts out of the air,
concatenating what they will while chalking it up to interpretation.

To enter dialogue, we must understand one another. The rich exchange of
ideas is an important first step. Clarity of meaning is the next. Sometimes
to be clear we enter the dialogue of challenge and response. Sometimes we
even debate. Nevertheless, I don't think Bruce is guilty of flaming, and I
don't think I'm guilty of pontification.

But perhaps I am. A pontifex is a maker of bridges, an architect, or designer.

As it is, nearly none of us work in the same institution. We don't control
each other's schedules or budgets. Given the lack of control, it is hard to
see how we can impose our views on one another. We seem, rather, to support
each other as friends and colleagues even when we disagree. I'm not
concerned that a robust exchange is going to crush anyone. Like Paulo
Freire, I am suggesting that we "enter into dialogue" through "soundness of
argumentation; by the practice of dialogue rather than polemics." I look
forward to the next contribution on theory of design.

Ken Friedman







%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%