DMB
> DMB responds:I guess you're upset about my answer to Lawry, which was on a completely
> different topic.
3WD
I haven't read your post to Lawry and very few in the Middle East
thread. If I'm upset it surely wasn't with you, you're too predicable
to get upset over, as the balance of your response illustrates.. It
just that, to me it seems a great deal of your posts lately contain, or
evolve, or highlight, or focus, or refer to the the socio/political
liberal/conservative patterns of value in one way or another Most
often they paint the latter negatively and the former postively while
making the claim that the MoQ supports, recommends, the liberal POV.
Often suggesting that the if an idea is liberal or progressive it is
automatically rises to the intellectural level, while conservative
values are alway social values. Under this system I suppose you would
classify the work of a philosopher like Charlie Hartshorne as on social
level while the work of Rorty would be on the intellectual, though they
are both published philosophers in pragmatic tradition, Rorty avowed
liberal, Hartshone avowed conservative. But in the end Hartshorne
arguably had a greater influence on Rorty at University of Chicago than
McKeon. I thought that the MoQ dissolved dualisms, it sure seems to have
missed your's.
About the Middle East I have nothing constructive to offer.
But this recent post by hamishmuirhead at least has some meat to look at
using the pragmatic method:
> I feel that it would be utterly pragmatic if we junked this idea of nationhood and
> subnationhod exept as an artifact of the cultural status quo which we inevitably have to get
> to terms with, and started to address people.
You start with questions like: If this were to come to true what
possible differences would it make? What would be the consequences?
Intended? Unintended? Which are good?
See how that works?
About Pirsig viz pragmatism. His claim as presented in Lila and as
evidenced by his actions since he published it, compared with historic
pragmatism and it's ongoing evolution, sure are making the claim harder
and harder to support. But you already knew that, Right? I'm a little
slower and more methodical in my evaluations. Currently there are three
Neo-Pragmatists who might be called "Public Intellectuals" Rorty, West,
and Putnam. I look at it as one down, two to go.
Hey, and I actually might learn something of value along the way.
3WD
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:15 BST