i've heard of him, but never read him, i take it he's a philosopher? "He also became active in a number of...groups involved in anti-racist campaigns, anti-human rights abuses movements, and the struggle for penal reform." Prolly a better person than i am, i guess.
anyway, i would not deem communication pointless, so much as wish to recognize how two people hear the same thing differently, which everyone has their own examples of. "Language is too slippery to be reliable" might be a good way to put it, in fact. This doesn't mean that we stop communicating, but it maybe does point to our propensity to make assumptions about what we hear--from our own povs--and to recognize that reading is at quite a remove from actually hearing something said--which points one to Word, btw--being that we lose inflection, at the very least; while noting that we often seek clarification even for things we hear (from people, if not from Word)
Imo "Stay here for the present" is a quite apt illustration of this concept, and i hope you notice that i make no conclusions other than that Talmudic scholars are recorded as employing "Stay here for the present" type reasoning--and even developing it to an art--at a time when logical thinking is known to have been in the ascendancy. So see that i am not suggesting that you even accept any of my conclusions, so much as learn a new way to change your mind that will likely be more in line with the intent of the Writ, imo as evidenced by the abundant hints provided.
You might see the sense in which i am not even talking to you any longer, as your post there makes clear where you stand on the matter, which is the same place you started. So, if you can see it, understand how someone else might read that post; some agreeing with you, and others maybe noticing that you have bothered to communicate a post about your desire to no longer communicate, an oxymoron wherein your actual purpose is revealed, perhaps, that being taking the opportunity to dismiss this concept once again, to belittle it, just from a slightly different angle, that being to conflate it with philosophy now. Seems like it would be better to seek peers that have learned dialectic reasoning and abandoned it or something; assuming that you can find any? rather than declare the grapes sour? at least imo.
And who am i to tell you that you, and those who agree with you, are wrong? What would even be the point? I can only suggest that the writers surely used dialectic reasoning, and if you choose to refuse to even consider it as a method for grasping their intent that is entirely up to you, and i understand. I have had the experience of listening to aspiring rabbis verbally spar at the Wall, and was struck by the differences in the way they debate Scripture v the way we do, even though i was ignorant of this concept of dialectic thinking at the time, or at least only barely aware of it; i knew "Easterners" thought differently, but would not have had a term for describing it.
So no doubt there is some way for any curious to verify this by other means, via Jewish forums or something, i dunno, if the link i provided does not show any fruit.
