Replies

You two have summed up the growing problem with the usual accuracy and eloquence.

Actually, no, you have, ALS.

When ideological or 'spiritual' alignment becomes more important than the commitment to intelligent discussion; when 'the other side' is seen as the problem, rather than as a partner with broadly similar interests but a different point of view, then we can dig the trenches, lay out the barbed wire, and reload the artillery.

I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories. I think you do much too good an impression of a sanctimonious thug to be a deliberate disruptor. All I can say is that, if you set out to damage conservatism and this forum, you would be following precisely the same course of action you are currently taking.

"When ideological or 'spiritual' alignment becomes more important than the commitment to intelligent discussion"

hmmmm... boy that sure sounds familiar.
oh yeah, here it is:

Marxist Philosophical Materialism
The principal features of Marxist philosophical materialism are as follows:
Contrary to idealism, which regards the world as the embodiment of an "absolute idea," a "universal spirit," "consciousness," Marx's philosophical materialism holds that the world is by its very nature material, that the multifold phenomena of the world constitute different forms of matter in motion, that interconnection and interdependence of phenomena as established by the dialectical method, are a law of the development of moving matter, and that the world develops in accordance with the laws of movement of matter and stands in no need of a "universal spirit."
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1938/09.htm

When ideological or 'spiritual' alignment becomes more important than the commitment to intelligent discussion; when 'the other side' is seen as the problem, rather than as a partner with broadly similar interests but a different point of view, then we can dig the trenches, lay out the barbed wire, and reload the artillery.

RWP, I think you are here arguing according to a false dichotomy that you took considerable time and energy to set up in the first place. I am certainly not arguing that "spiritual alignment" takes precedence over truth.

For one thing, the formulation of the problem you give here a priori completely delegitimates the argument coming from the "other side," before they can even get their mouths open -- which you refuse (apparently) to credit or understand.

In this process, you demonize your "enemy" for starters, already accusing him of a bad will refusal to engage in enlightened debate. You expect the very worst from him; which neatly cancels out any reasonable deliberation of the real issue before us:

Which is: Whether or not it can be conceived by a rational mind that subjective experience enters into objective experience at some point "downstream" of the subjective experience.

It seems, deliberately or accidentally, that you are "invested" in an outcome that can only result from queering the question right up front: Your strong suggestion that merely proposing this question amounts to a refusal to engage in intelligent discussion.

But you seem reluctant to talk about that. I can only wonder: Why not? Maybe if you could get this question "right," then the "conflict" you note could be avoided or quickly resolved.