Skip to content. | Skip to navigation

Sections

Personal tools

Log in

You are here: Home → Moral Philosophy → Debates → Louise Townsend → Verbatim Documents → Andrew Email 11/8/2002

Log in: Login Name

Password

Cookies are not enabled. You must enable cookies before you can log in.; Forgot your password?

Andrew Email 11/8/2002

AndrewEmail2002-11-08.txt — Plain Text, 26Kb

File contents

Message-ID: <E93C63CF5FE48E4BAFBC9521BBFD4FE7029F6E@exchange4.activevoice.com>
From: Andrew Hammoude <AHammoude@activevoice.com>
To: 'Louise D Townsend' <ltownsend3@juno.com>
Cc: "'hammoude@juno.com'" <hammoude@juno.com>
Subject: RE: FW: Re: guest?
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 23:44:07 -0800 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C287C3.C8B73EA0"

This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C287C3.C8B73EA0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

Hello Louise,

Thanks for your e-mail, and sorry about the slow acknowledgement -- like yourself I am very busy and feeling the pressures of work.

I'm glad you read my notes and found them interesting. And though I would be interested in hearing your response, please don't feel that you are under any obligation to respond to them. I understand that it takes a lot of time to articulate things clearly, and I know that there are other pressing demands on your time. Also, two of my major motivations in writing the notes have already been met: I wanted to create a point of record for myself, and I wanted to give you a clear answer to your questioning of my veto decision. Both of those goals I think have been met. Whether or not you agree with the veto, I think my reasons must now be very clear to you. So from my point of view we have already reached a very reasonable stopping point, and if we were to just leave things at that, this would be completely fine with me.

There is a great deal I could say about your last e-mail. The discussion inevitably broadens, as we encounter the deeper underpinnings of my philosophy and yours, and discover further layers of disconnect. But it just takes too much time and energy. So I will limit myself to various place-holder comments below, but leave most of the supporting argument unsaid.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Louise D Townsend [mailto:ltownsend3@juno.com]
> Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 2:42 PM
> To: Andrew Hammoude
> Subject: Re: FW: Re: guest?
> 
> > Also, a minor comment on something you wrote: I don't 
> believe I have 
> > said anywhere that "Karen should be barred from the group 
> because of 
> > what she does for a living."
> 
> SEMANTICS, SEMANTICS.  Why split hairs here?  No, you didn't 
> specifically
> say she should be "barred from the group because of what she 
> does for a
> living."  You said you were vetoing her membership because 
> you prefer not
> to have to associate with people involved in animal 
> experimentation.  I
> fail to see how these two statements differ substantially.

But they do. The two statements "I want Karen to be in the group" and "Karen should not be barred from the group" are wildly different. The first is a purely personal statement. The second is an appeal to an *external* principle; it pushes the issue up to some higher plane, above and beyond a simple desire for personal fulfilment. You may fail to see how these two statements differ, but I can assure you that they do.

Why does this matter? It matters because people talk out of the side of their mouths constantly, and they use precisely these sorts of semantic devices to muddy the waters. Though your use of "should be" instead of "I want" is inconsequential in this particular case, it is a toe dipped into an ocean of sophistry. The statement "I want K in the group" is absolutely truthful, and absolutely clean. The statement "K should not be barred" is just a tiny bit, ever so slightly, slippery.

When I am drawing your attention to semantic negligence on your part, it does you no good to shout semantics at me.

> > Regarding the possible charge about me being less than perfectly 
> > courteous with Karen, or speaking in a condescending manner at 
> > times. Suppose Josef Mengele says, "Well look, if you're going to 
> > cop an attitude, I'm just not going to have this conversation with 
> > you." This would seem to make him pretty much safe from any 
> > reproach at all.
> 
> AS I NOTED to you in our telephone conversation the other day, if one
> hopes to convince or persuade in debate, a courteous tone can often be
> more effective than an angrily passionate, snide, and 
> condescending one. 
> Words like "bullshit," "bogus," and "claptrap," and imprecations like
> "shame on you" detract from the persuasiveness of your 
> argument, if only
> because they _distract_ the reader's attention from your many valid
> points.  

Again, I have much to say about this general topic, but life is too short, so just a few observations.

In one respect you are right of course: angry ad hominem attacks are counterproductive. But there are two other things to think about when considering the tone of my presentation. First, as I have indicated above, our human misbehaviour is almost always supported by some form of intellectual sophistry -- it has to be, otherwise it would be impossible to proceed. And since our words are the mirror of our thoughts, our misbehaviour is supported by verbal sophistry too. The world is awash in such sophistry -- just listen to our political leaders for five minutes.

And for this reason I have enormous resistance to any tinkering with plain and truthful expression whatsoever. For anything one wants to say there is a way to say it that is neither over-stated nor under-stated; just the simple, unvarnished facts of the matter. On the far side of that there is exaggeration and insult. On the near side there is euphemism and double-speak. But the slightest step we take away from accuracy of expression, in either direction, represents compromise to the clarity and honesty of our thinking. And this is too high a price to pay.

You say to me, "Andrew, you are on the far side of plain speaking, and you are alienating your audience." All right -- I take your point, and I'll try to do better. But in return, you cannot tug me over onto the near side of plain speaking, and ask me to water things down to make them more palatable for you.

When you challenge my choice of words, the only concern for me is: are these the correct words or not? With regard to "bullshit" and "bogus," these two words are right on the money. They are common words with a very well-understood meaning, and they are absolutely on target in the context in which I used them. In the teeth of your objection, I stand behind these words as truthful and accurate. Sure, I could have used out-of-control irrational terms, or I could have used mealy-mouthed diplomatic ones. You can demand that I not do the one, but you cannot ask that I do the other.

With regard to "claptrap" (and it's accompanying adjective "fatuous"), my reaction is quite different -- these are clearly the wrong words. What you have said to me may be questionable (oooh...a little diplomacy after all...) but it doesn't meet the definition of claptrap. And your presentation is nowhere near being fatuous. That canned expression rolled off my fingers in a glib fashion without me stopping to think about it. I was wrong, the allegation is withdrawn, I'm sorry, and I beg your pardon.

But in no way am I catering to your sensitivities in not wanting to hear strong words like these -- it is just that they are incorrect. Claptrap certainly exists, as does fatuity, and when I see those things I will use those words and none other to describe them.

"Shame on you" is worth parsing out. First, there is no way this can be considered in imprecation; either you mis-spoke or you are misunderstanding the meaning of the word. But more interestingly, this phrase carries at least three informational payloads, one intellectual and two personal. The intellectual payload is the simple statement of fact that I consider your apologizing for Karen to be a shameful thing. This is my reasoned view of the situation, and I'm not going to mince words about it. Whether you agree or not, and whether you care for this phrase or not, is neither here nor there; it's the unvarnished truth, and I stand by it.

And one personal payload is that I am striking you with the force of my disapproval, and I intend you to feel it. What you do with this is up to you. You can ignore it completely; you can dismiss me as a deranged fanatic; there are many ways in which you can dispose of this. But at the end of the day you will be left with this fact: an educated, articulate, intelligent, otherwise reasonable, and otherwise friendly man said this to your face. I think this is a salutary thing for you to have to dispose of.

But the other personal payload is that there is also an essential gentleness in this phrase -- can you not hear it? When you use this phrase to someone, you are saying that though you may be genuinely dismayed, your friendly and open disposition towards the other is not compromised.

This phrase says everything I want to say, and the more I think about it the more I like it.

> You're angry, Andrew, and it shows, and on a certain level, I
> respect that.  But I think at many points your tone in the notes is
> downright inappropriate and, at times, crosses the border 
> into offensive.

You are not angry, Louise, and it shows. And whether or not I respect this depends on the reasons why you are not angry. If you never get angry about anything; if you can calmly debate with Josef Mengele; if you can answer his slippery self-serving arguments and fully maintain your courtesy and composure; if all of these things are true then your position is truly consistent. You are a better person than I am, and you fully deserve my respect.

But if not, then your position is not consistent. In this case your comments are just another manifestation of your double standard. You say my tone is inappropriate; I say on the contrary, it is entirely appropriate. Your friend is doing something harmful, and you are making excuses. The one fact is ugly, and the other shameful. I have presented an argument in support of these statements, which remains unrefuted. My tone fully reflects the nature of these facts, and how I feel about them. Tell me my analysis is wrong, and then you may tell me my tone is inappropriate.

Someone who isn't angry finds it easy to debate with courtesy. But someone who isn't angry is not inclined to provoke debate in the first place. You certainly enjoy the luxury of not being angry; that much is plain. Unfortunately, Karen could wait a thousand years to hear a peep out of you.

> But your tone is not the point here (unless you personally 
> meant to hurt
> me?) and what I really want to respond to is your carefully reasoned
> arguments, when, like I say, I have a chance to think my own position
> through more carefully.  

No, of course didn't mean to hurt you -- in fact the suggestion comes as a surprise to me. But I will admit to this: in addition to presenting a purely rational argument, I also mean to shock and perturb you; I mean to cause you difficulties. As long as my shock tactics are overt and have rational support, I think this is perfectly fair.

OK, it's late, I've got to wrap this up. Two final placeholders:

1. Why do you invoke the "but where do you draw the line" argument in reference to Karen, but this abruptly goes out the window in reference to Josef? Where did that argument disappear to? What does this mean?

2. What does it mean that, as you feel the intellectual noose tightening, you try to pop the discussion into a different dimension by saying, "but where is there room in this for how people feel about things?" but as soon as you see how this objection applies to Josef, you abandon it instantly? What was that all about?

--Andrew

------_=_NextPart_001_01C287C3.C8B73EA0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version =
5.5.2653.12">
<TITLE>RE: FW: Re: guest?</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Hello Louise,</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Thanks for your e-mail, and sorry about the slow =
acknowledgement -- like yourself I am very busy and feeling the =
pressures of work.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>I'm glad you read my notes and found them =
interesting. And though I would be interested in hearing your response, =
please don't feel that you are under any obligation to respond to them. =
I understand that it takes a lot of time to articulate things clearly, =
and I know that there are other pressing demands on your time. Also, =
two of my major motivations in writing the notes have already been met: =
I wanted to create a point of record for myself, and I wanted to give =
you a clear answer to your questioning of my veto decision. Both of =
those goals I think have been met. Whether or not you agree with the =
veto, I think my reasons must now be very clear to you. So from my =
point of view we have already reached a very reasonable stopping point, =
and if we were to just leave things at that, this would be completely =
fine with me.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>There is a great deal I could say about your last =
e-mail. The discussion inevitably broadens, as we encounter the deeper =
underpinnings of my philosophy and yours, and discover further layers =
of disconnect. But it just takes too much time and energy. So I will =
limit myself to various place-holder comments below, but leave most of =
the supporting argument unsaid.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; -----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; From: Louise D Townsend [<A =
HREF=3D"mailto:ltownsend3@juno.com">mailto:ltownsend3@juno.com</A>]</FON=
T>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 2:42 PM</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; To: Andrew Hammoude</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Subject: Re: FW: Re: guest?</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; Also, a minor comment on something you =
wrote: I don't </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; believe I have </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; said anywhere that &quot;Karen should be =
barred from the group </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; because of </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; what she does for a living.&quot;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; SEMANTICS, SEMANTICS.&nbsp; Why split hairs =
here?&nbsp; No, you didn't </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; specifically</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; say she should be &quot;barred from the group =
because of what she </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; does for a</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; living.&quot;&nbsp; You said you were vetoing =
her membership because </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; you prefer not</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; to have to associate with people involved in =
animal </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; experimentation.&nbsp; I</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; fail to see how these two statements differ =
substantially.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>But they do. The two statements &quot;I want Karen to =
be in the group&quot; and &quot;Karen should not be barred from the =
group&quot; are wildly different. The first is a purely personal =
statement. The second is an appeal to an *external* principle; it =
pushes the issue up to some higher plane, above and beyond a simple =
desire for personal fulfilment. You may fail to see how these two =
statements differ, but I can assure you that they do.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Why does this matter? It matters because people talk =
out of the side of their mouths constantly, and they use precisely =
these sorts of semantic devices to muddy the waters. Though your use of =
&quot;should be&quot; instead of &quot;I want&quot; is inconsequential =
in this particular case, it is a toe dipped into an ocean of sophistry. =
The statement &quot;I want K in the group&quot; is absolutely truthful, =
and absolutely clean. The statement &quot;K should not be barred&quot; =
is just a tiny bit, ever so slightly, slippery.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>When I am drawing your attention to semantic =
negligence on your part, it does you no good to shout semantics at =
me.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; Regarding the possible charge about me =
being less than perfectly </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; courteous with Karen, or speaking in a =
condescending manner at </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; times. Suppose Josef Mengele says, =
&quot;Well look, if you're going to </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; cop an attitude, I'm just not going to =
have this conversation with </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; you.&quot; This would seem to make him =
pretty much safe from any </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; reproach at all.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; AS I NOTED to you in our telephone conversation =
the other day, if one</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; hopes to convince or persuade in debate, a =
courteous tone can often be</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; more effective than an angrily passionate, =
snide, and </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; condescending one. </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Words like &quot;bullshit,&quot; =
&quot;bogus,&quot; and &quot;claptrap,&quot; and imprecations =
like</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &quot;shame on you&quot; detract from the =
persuasiveness of your </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; argument, if only</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; because they _distract_ the reader's attention =
from your many valid</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; points.&nbsp; </FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Again, I have much to say about this general topic, =
but life is too short, so just a few observations.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>In one respect you are right of course: angry ad =
hominem attacks are counterproductive. But there are two other things =
to think about when considering the tone of my presentation. First, as =
I have indicated above, our human misbehaviour is almost always =
supported by some form of intellectual sophistry -- it has to be, =
otherwise it would be impossible to proceed. And since our words are =
the mirror of our thoughts, our misbehaviour is supported by verbal =
sophistry too. The world is awash in such sophistry -- just listen to =
our political leaders for five minutes.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>And for this reason I have enormous resistance to any =
tinkering with plain and truthful expression whatsoever. For anything =
one wants to say there is a way to say it that is neither over-stated =
nor under-stated; just the simple, unvarnished facts of the matter. On =
the far side of that there is exaggeration and insult. On the near side =
there is euphemism and double-speak. But the slightest step we take =
away from accuracy of expression, in either direction, represents =
compromise to the clarity and honesty of our thinking. And this is too =
high a price to pay.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>You say to me, &quot;Andrew, you are on the far side =
of plain speaking, and you are alienating your audience.&quot; All =
right -- I take your point, and I'll try to do better. But in return, =
you cannot tug me over onto the near side of plain speaking, and ask me =
to water things down to make them more palatable for you.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>When you challenge my choice of words, the only =
concern for me is: are these the correct words or not? With regard to =
&quot;bullshit&quot; and &quot;bogus,&quot; these two words are right =
on the money. They are common words with a very well-understood =
meaning, and they are absolutely on target in the context in which I =
used them. In the teeth of your objection, I stand behind these words =
as truthful and accurate. Sure, I could have used out-of-control =
irrational terms, or I could have used mealy-mouthed diplomatic ones. =
You can demand that I not do the one, but you cannot ask that I do the =
other.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>With regard to &quot;claptrap&quot; (and it's =
accompanying adjective &quot;fatuous&quot;), my reaction is quite =
different -- these are clearly the wrong words. What you have said to =
me may be questionable (oooh...a little diplomacy after all...) but it =
doesn't meet the definition of claptrap. And your presentation is =
nowhere near being fatuous. That canned expression rolled off my =
fingers in a glib fashion without me stopping to think about it. I was =
wrong, the allegation is withdrawn, I'm sorry, and I beg your =
pardon.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>But in no way am I catering to your sensitivities in =
not wanting to hear strong words like these -- it is just that they are =
incorrect. Claptrap certainly exists, as does fatuity, and when I see =
those things I will use those words and none other to describe =
them.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>&quot;Shame on you&quot; is worth parsing out. First, =
there is no way this can be considered in imprecation; either you =
mis-spoke or you are misunderstanding the meaning of the word. But more =
interestingly, this phrase carries at least three informational =
payloads, one intellectual and two personal. The intellectual payload =
is the simple statement of fact that I consider your apologizing for =
Karen to be a shameful thing. This is my reasoned view of the =
situation, and I'm not going to mince words about it. Whether you agree =
or not, and whether you care for this phrase or not, is neither here =
nor there; it's the unvarnished truth, and I stand by it.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>And one personal payload is that I am striking you =
with the force of my disapproval, and I intend you to feel it. What you =
do with this is up to you. You can ignore it completely; you can =
dismiss me as a deranged fanatic; there are many ways in which you can =
dispose of this. But at the end of the day you will be left with this =
fact: an educated, articulate, intelligent, otherwise reasonable, and =
otherwise friendly man said this to your face. I think this is a =
salutary thing for you to have to dispose of.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>But the other personal payload is that there is also =
an essential gentleness in this phrase -- can you not hear it? When you =
use this phrase to someone, you are saying that though you may be =
genuinely dismayed, your friendly and open disposition towards the =
other is not compromised.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>This phrase says everything I want to say, and the =
more I think about it the more I like it.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; You're angry, Andrew, and it shows, and on a =
certain level, I</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; respect that.&nbsp; But I think at many points =
your tone in the notes is</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; downright inappropriate and, at times, crosses =
the border </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; into offensive.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>You are not angry, Louise, and it shows. And whether =
or not I respect this depends on the reasons why you are not angry. If =
you never get angry about anything; if you can calmly debate with Josef =
Mengele; if you can answer his slippery self-serving arguments and =
fully maintain your courtesy and composure; if all of these things are =
true then your position is truly consistent. You are a better person =
than I am, and you fully deserve my respect.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>But if not, then your position is not consistent. In =
this case your comments are just another manifestation of your double =
standard. You say my tone is inappropriate; I say on the contrary, it =
is entirely appropriate. Your friend is doing something harmful, and =
you are making excuses. The one fact is ugly, and the other shameful. I =
have presented an argument in support of these statements, which =
remains unrefuted. My tone fully reflects the nature of these facts, =
and how I feel about them. Tell me my analysis is wrong, and then you =
may tell me my tone is inappropriate.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Someone who isn't angry finds it easy to debate with =
courtesy. But someone who isn't angry is not inclined to provoke debate =
in the first place. You certainly enjoy the luxury of not being angry; =
that much is plain. Unfortunately, Karen could wait a thousand years to =
hear a peep out of you.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; But your tone is not the point here (unless you =
personally </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; meant to hurt</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; me?) and what I really want to respond to is =
your carefully reasoned</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; arguments, when, like I say, I have a chance to =
think my own position</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; through more carefully.&nbsp; </FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>No, of course didn't mean to hurt you -- in fact the =
suggestion comes as a surprise to me. But I will admit to this: in =
addition to presenting a purely rational argument, I also mean to shock =
and perturb you; I mean to cause you difficulties. As long as my shock =
tactics are overt and have rational support, I think this is perfectly =
fair.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>OK, it's late, I've got to wrap this up. Two final =
placeholders:</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>1. Why do you invoke the &quot;but where do you draw =
the line&quot; argument in reference to Karen, but this abruptly goes =
out the window in reference to Josef? Where did that argument disappear =
to? What does this mean?</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>2. What does it mean that, as you feel the =
intellectual noose tightening, you try to pop the discussion into a =
different dimension by saying, &quot;but where is there room in this =
for how people feel about things?&quot; but as soon as you see how this =
objection applies to Josef, you abandon it instantly? What was that all =
about?</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>--Andrew</FONT>
</P>

</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C287C3.C8B73EA0--

Document Actions

Previous: Louise Email 11/1/2002 Next: Louise Letter 11/8/2002 Right arrow