January 13, 2011
“Graham is ‘puzzled that Ivakhiv thinks OOO can be refuted by the fact that objects have histories.’ I’m puzzled why Graham would think that I think that.”
Graham thinks that because of ADRIAN’S LAST POST.
I do like Adrian, but at times it is extremely frustrating to try to settle anything with him. Half of the time he claims that OOO is wrong. The other half of the time he claims that OOO and relationism are saying the same thing and we’re all a big happy family on the same mission and we’re wasting time with a pseudo-dispute.
This time, I cite another of the posts in which he claims quite frankly that OOO is wrong, and when I say I’m puzzled by it he reverts to “we have no differences” mode. He even claims to be amused that there was a “volley” of responses to his “brief” post, as if it were a question of some massive overreaction to a minor point on his part. (The “volley” in question apparently consists of two responses by Tim Morton.)
In fact, few of my ongoing blog exchanges leave a more hollow feeling than those with Adrian Ivakhiv. It seems to me that the dispute has not moved a centimeter since it first began. Maybe we’re just poorly suited to each other, like two boxers whose styles lead inevitably to stalemate in rematch after rematch.
Nothing against Adrian, who seems perfectly bright. It’s just that every time I read one of his posts on OOO and start to compose a response, it is always with a feeling of the most hopeless futility, and with the phrase “here goes nothing” ringing in my head.