Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="diggerfoot, post: 2509623, member: 1673"] It may be best to PM at this point, but since I'll reference defense88 in this I'll reply here and try to keep it brief. There are two basic goals of "discussion," one is to arrive at shared meaning, the other is to prove a point. One is a collaborative process, the other combative. Shared meaning may prove elusive, but will then end is some type of "we'll have to agree to disagree." When d88 asked for your list, I took that as a sign that he wanted to achieve shared meaning. Whether this is true for you or not, you present the appearance of proving a point as your main goal for discussion. The use of caps feeds into this, though with me you are giving the appearance of wanting shared meaning, which is why I reply. People can engage in proving their point, resulting in "lively discussions" that all enjoy no matter how combative in appearance. However, when the different goals of shared meaning and proving a point clash, there are likely to be frustrations on both ends. All social systems, a basketball team being one of them, are subjective. Any criteria for evaluating social phenomenon, even when they can be objectively compared, are still subjectively chosen. Thus proving your point that Mt. Rushmore is a subjective endeavor does not enlighten. Of course it is. I understand how you might think that someone suggesting Lobo is most important may be failing to understand the subjectivity of their statement, but you don't know if something empirical like "first NC" is part of their unspoken assessment and they simply have not expressed themselves well. In essence you assume the worst, a kind of a straw man approach, which may or may not be accurate, to prove your point. Attempting shared meaning would assume the best in another poster's response, whether true or not, and work from there. There is a difference in using "most important player" or "most important statesman" as a criteria versus "first NC" or "first President." The first can never be empirically determined, which is part of your point, but the latter can. Indeed, the latter turns the "importance" criteria into a discrete variable. Both Bascomb and Lobo are important and this does not distinguish them, unlike the first NC. You can fault "first NC" on the basis of validity, whether it is the sort of criteria that should be used for a "Mt. Rushmore," in which case you should provide an example of what you think is more valid. However, faulting it on the basis of subjectivity or "personal whim," while proving a point that is already a given, will do nothing towards reaching shared meaning. For what it's worth, if this were an exercise in nominating best players I would abandon the Mt. Rushmore analogy entirely, like others have suggested, in favor of a more basketball-pertinent five player all star team, or even better a tiered system where, for now, only Taurasi, Moore and Stewart make the first tier, others to be determined. However, while fully understanding Mt. Rushmore to be an arbitrary subjective endeavor, as are all these endeavors, I made an analogy between "firsts," with the notion that the real Rushmore has on it the first President even though he was neither objectively the first statesman nor subjectively the greatest President in the eyes of many. Oops! I did not keep this brief, but since you asked, I sincerely hope this helps. If it doesn't, maybe we'll have to agree to disagree. ;-) [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach