You wrote the following as part of the ongoing discussion about
constructivisms.
Statements given by someone interpreted with meanings not consistent with
those of the maker of the statement are *likely* to appear confused. This
confused state is often attributed to the original maker of the statement.
My experience is that the confusion has more to do with a mis-match of
meanings being used. There are two sets of meaning involved one each on
the part of each party. When the statement of one party is interpreted
using the meanings of the other or using a mix of the two sets of meanings,
then it isn't really being judged in the context in which it was formulated
and meant.
[Bwhich it was formulated
and meant.
It is the confusions that arise from this mismatch which motivated a
comment I made some time ago, evoking disagreement from Eugene, about
valuing when I (think!) I can tell a disagreement from a confusion in
what are purportedly academic arguments.
thanks
mike