Dear Khalid,

 

Thank you for your prompt response and willingness to continue dialoguing on the subject.

 

I am in full agreement with you that to have a meaningful dialogue one must agree on common meaning of the terms. That's why I defined the terms to promote common understanding. To further the dialogue I invite you to respond to my definitions from the point of view of  (i) are they clearly articulated; (ii) are they meaningful for understanding the issues we want to understand; and (iii) if they are not meaningful what is the problem with the definitions?

 

You would need to go beyond simply saying you agree or disagree; you have to give reasons. If my definitions are simply confusing things, you would need to say in what way and why the definitions are not helpful. These are matters of an analytical and rational approach.

 

Which brings me to your Types A and B. Do you think it is helpful for analytical purposes to categories the whole humanity and all research, knowledge and philosophies into two watertight compartments of the type you have described (or any two watertight compartments for that matter)? If you insist in asking me to gave names to these two impossible mutually exclusive groupings, I would say your implication is that the first group is composed of Good people and the second is composed of Bad people! The first will achieve worldly Nirvana and live happily ever after in this Jannat. The second is composed of the proverbial Satans, who will forever burn in the worldly fire of stagnation and non-communication.

 

Since I assume that both of us are Good people, forward-looking and flexible in opinions, ready to accept change, including new meanings of old words, let's get on with our dialogue. Do respond to my three questions and we can take it from there. No question of saying we agree to disagree, goodbye!   

 

Abrar