Not at all, OUG.

<<what must be clear is aj's claiming to..'have had'..experiences..[lol]..un named]..he could refute..>>

You see, there's this little thing called the burden of proof. It allows me to exercise a reasonable and healthy bit of scepticism without having to prove anything until the ones making the claim have fulfilled their burden of proof.

<<...yet refuses to name..any..>>

How can I refuse to, when no-one has asked?

<<and YET INSISTS antiseptic must*..>>

Really? Where did I do that?

Antiseptic only needs to do that if he's trying to convince me of the truth of his claims.

You guys really are a confused bunch, aren't you. Whether you're in your provisional stages or completely gone. It doesn't matter.

Your arguments and responses rely heavily on insinuation or just blatantly setting up and attacking strawmen by attributing motivations and meaning to what your opponents think and say, despite them never having alluded to it.

It's truly fascinating to watch.

Antiseptic,

I don't see it that way at all.

<<...we seem to have become wedged into some kind of corner.>>

But I could imagine that it may feel that way when all of one's attempts to read more into what another is saying, than is actually there, keep failing.

And this would have to be the epitome of transference, if you're referring to me...

<<Any desire to find a way out, or is it backs to the wall and kick like hell till the bell rings?>>

Because no-one in their right mind could possibly interpret the patience I've displayed in correcting you through every attempt to misinterpret me as kicking with their back to the wall.

You'll make a fine theist one day, Antiseptic. You really will.

ANTI,

Things are fine here : )

Just having a bit of trouble processing the recent political shenanigans - and realising, for good and proper this time, that the almost indistinguishable policies by the two majors are representative of the will of the majority.

(mightily impressed with your measured tone these days :)

Poirot,

"the almost indistinguishable policies by the two majors are representative of the will of the majority."

Non, non, mon ami. If the Coalition wins the next election, we'll certainly realise that there's a difference when there's a concerted attack on social democracy under the guise of 'fixing' the non-existent budget crisis. Our problem is that we have compulsory voting and the politicians have to appeal to the lowest common denominator. I will say no more since we're OT.

I've just come across this piece. It's an excellent exposition of much of what I base my own approach on, although obviously much better expressed than my own humble efforts. It brings together much of what I've been trying to think about on all sorts of topics, not just the current one. In short, it's a thoughtful consideration of the ways our experiences, abilities, predispositions and social conditioning lead us into ways of interpreting the world.

Highly recommended.

http://www.academia.edu/4162930/Ch_2._Unchaining_Deconstruction_And_The_Intertextual_from_book_Radical_Research_

You may need to sign up at academia.edu to access it, I'm not sure, but the effort to do that will be worth it anyway, it's an excellent site.

AJPhillips, my question was whether you are interested in finding a way out of this rhetorical corner. I was hoping to imply, although obviously I failed, that defensiveness is not likely to do so. Perhaps the link might provide one possible route?

Poirot, thank you. For the first time in a very long while I'm doing things I genuinely believe to be worthwhile and good in most of my life, rather than scrambling to survive and thinking in the cracks that life throws up. As well, this forum is now largely free of the more rabidly irrational elements that used to infest it and made a decent conversation so hard as to be almost not worth bothering with. I do enjoy thinking and it's great to have thoughtful people to discuss things with and stimulate that thinking.

Don't despair about the commonality of the major parties, perhaps it's a sign of a more mature body politic? Far too much of the discussion around politics in the last 30-40 years has been artificially polarised and simplistic. It's a hopeful sign that we seem to be entering a period in which the problems seem to be recognised as genuine by both sides and the silly politicking is being put aside to try to deal with them, don't you think?

Antiseptic,

Looks like my suspicions were right then.

<<...my question was whether you are interested in finding a way out of this rhetorical corner.>>

So instead of acknowledging that you have unjustifiably (and perhaps even deliberately) misinterpreted me every step of the way, you try to make out as if I had started-out very broadly - encompassing many assumptions and assertions in what I was saying - and have now been forced into some alleged corner by you.

That's dishonest.

Furthemore, if you want to continue down that line, then at least have the courtesy to demonstrate where, and in what way, I started out broad and how you think it's different to my position now. I'd be fascinated to know why you think my current position of is something that I need to 'get out of' too. What's wrong with it?

And as I pointed out earlier, whether you hallucinated or not; had a vision or not, is irrelevant and does not change what I've been saying: that your analogies defending religious thought were false analogies, and that the time to believe something is when there is evidence and/or reasoned argument (depending on how extraordinary the claim is).

I am not talking in riddles here.

<<I was hoping to imply, although obviously I failed, that defensiveness is not likely to do so.>>

Having to to continuously clarify a position that one has held and clearly stated from the very beginning is not defensiveness. If you are going to continue down this line, then please show me the courtesy of pointing to any moment of the discussion at which i have been too vague.

You can't just assume or pretend that the alleged pinning of me into a corner is self-evident. Try demonstrating what you're claiming (it's what I do). I can understand why you may be reluctant to.

Anyway, if you're going continue to be so dishonest, every step of the way, as I have demonstrated you've been (whether it be deliberately with me, or just unintentionally with yourself), then there is no point in me continuing here.

Oh dear. So much for having a nice relaxing Sunday morning.

I seem to have hurt your feelings, AJ, for which I apologise. By all means, you win. The corner's all yours. Enjoy.