DiscussMormonism.com

Personally, I would characterize Literski’s comments as defensive. Maybe a little overly defensive. I didn’t notice him impugning Dan’s character or questioning his intelligence. Of course, whether he said anything that was offensive to Dan is for Dan to say, and I cannot claim to have read every last comment Literski made in the chat. I did read a lot of them, however, and I do not recall things that made me think he was being anything other than a little defensive about Vogel’s treatment and reading of the book he put so much time and effort into producing.

I have also noticed that Mormon Studies, Mormon History, etc., can raise a lot of negative emotions. Good people come into conflict in their disagreements about things. Dan disagrees with the authors of Method Infinite. They do not think he is reading some of their positions correctly. He does not like the way they are responding to his criticisms. I have seen this kind of thing so many times that I am not surprised in the least to see it here. Scholarship can get very personal because it requires so much personal investment and commitment to produce.

I tend to think that in the end all of this will amount to very little. I like all of the parties involved, and I can see why they do not agree. What I imagine will come out of this, ideally, is better arguments and better information. We can leave these people we care about out of the picture for a second and imagine that this uncomfortable process will lead to that. Nothing detracts from the worthwhile accomplishments and contributions of anyone involved in this small kerfuffle.

dan vogel wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 25, 2022 1:50 am

Did you read Nick's hostile and ad hominem comments? I will address the substantive comments next week, but it would be a waste of time. I can't review the book and debate at the same time. You already know what the authors think. It's my turn.

The only comment I made that could be considered "hostile and ad hominem" was when I openly laughed at Dan for claiming expertise in Jungian psychology because he read a couple books decades ago---all the while not realizing that I hold an actual PhD in depth psychology with emphasis in Jungian and archetypal studies. Aside from that, all of my comments were directly challenging his wild assertions about Method Infinite and our positions as authors.

Anyone want to link to Dr. Litersky’s comments? I don’t see anything from the link on page 1.

- Doc

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote: ↑

Sun Nov 27, 2022 9:09 pm

Anyone want to link to Dr. Litersky’s comments? I don’t see anything from the link on page 1.

- Doc

Uh, look above your post.

DrNickLiterski wrote: ↑

Sun Nov 27, 2022 8:51 pm

dan vogel wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 25, 2022 1:50 am

Did you read Nick's hostile and ad hominem comments? I will address the substantive comments next week, but it would be a waste of time. I can't review the book and debate at the same time. You already know what the authors think. It's my turn.

The only comment I made that could be considered "hostile and ad hominem" was when I openly laughed at Dan for claiming expertise in Jungian psychology because he read a couple books decades ago---all the while not realizing that I hold an actual PhD in depth psychology with emphasis in Jungian and archetypal studies. Aside from that, all of my comments were directly challenging his wild assertions about Method Infinite and our positions as authors.

I never claimed expertise in Jungian psychology. You claimed that for me in your sarcastic remark. My argument, which you have yet to address, was about the weakness of the synchronicity and collective unconscious theories, and their misuse in historical discussions.

Mr. Vogel, why won’t you debate live? Are you unsure of your positions?

dan vogel wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 28, 2022 1:24 am

I never claimed expertise in Jungian psychology. You claimed that for me in your sarcastic remark. My argument, which you have yet to address, was about the weakness of the synchronicity and collective unconscious theories, and their misuse in historical discussions.

Based on your comments thus far, I have no reason to believe that you personally understand Jung's theories of synchronicity or collective unconscious. You said nothing at all about these theories, other than your brief comments in the podcast, where you simply ridiculed us for mentioning either concept. Such ridicule, of course, is also regarded by many as ad hominem attack.

Ironically, for you to accuse me of ad hominem at this point brings to mind another Jungian concept, i.e., projection.

Informant wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 28, 2022 3:25 am

Mr. Vogel, why won’t you debate live? Are you unsure of your positions?

Live debate can demonstrate which individual has the better debating skills. It's not a reliable method for getting to the truth.

Res Ipsa wrote:
Live debate can demonstrate which individual has the better debating skills. It's not a reliable method for getting to the truth.

That’s just something people who aren’t certain of their positions say.

Informant wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 28, 2022 6:24 pm

That’s just something people who aren’t certain of their positions say.

"Technically, no. I don’t even know where I was last night. Or where I am now, or even if I am."