From: Matt Kundert (pirsigaffliction@hotmail.com)
Date: Tue Jan 18 2005 - 20:51:12 GMT
Hey Ian,
I'm confused about where our conversation went. I think we were focusing on
two different things in the last exchange. I didn't really know we were
focusing on "rationality" and "logic," the "evolution in the meaning of the
word (or the idea of) 'reasoned argument,'" but I can do that for a moment.
For instance, you keep pressing me on a point about the "rules of logic,"
implying I have some kind fervent reverence for it. I think that pretty
misguided. You may not remember, but I was the guy that was some time ago
said to have a very poor grasp of logic, or at least no respect for it.
Pragmatists would naturally agree that "rules" are simply guidelines (taking
Geoffery Rush's brilliantly delivered line in Pirates of the Carribean as
their standard). That's why I love Rorty's formulation of philosophy as
"the greatest game of all precisely because it is the game of changing the
rules." But part of Wittgenstein's brilliance was pointing out the
importance of rules to intelligibility. If there are no rules, then there's
no way to interpret anything. A language game needs rules to exist.
So, when you say, "the only rule of conversation is to have one,"
pragmatists involved in the philosophy of language will reply, "Well, yeah,
but you are going to need a whole lot more to _have_ the conversation." And
that's about it, though. The two most general rules of conversation: Rule
1) Conversations are a must. Rule 2) You need more rules to have a
conversation. So every particular conversation is going to have its own
rules, depending on what kind of conversation it is. Part of the demand for
rules is to disbar certain things from the playing field, so when you're
having a conversation about football, you know you're talking about a game
played with a round, black and white rubber ball and not a game played with
an ovoid, brown pigskin ball.
This is why I don't understand your harping about the "rules of logic." I
would take the rules of logic to be a pretty standard thing to follow in a
reasonable conversation. Pirsig would certainly agree to them, as I think
his "tests of truth" includes them. They help you distinguish between
consequences and bs. This isn't to say you need a Logic Book on hand to
have an argument. Most people have the most basic rules of logic
internalized. We follow them implicitly, indeed most of our thinking is
already structured by them.
So when you say things like, "A poetic joke, say, is at least as valid a
contribution," I would say, "Yeah, sure, but not always." It depends on the
conversation. When you say, "What I don't buy is the logical positivist /
objective fundamentalist / hyper-rationalist idea that reasoned argumement
depends only on logical rationale," I would say, "Yeah, sure, what
pragmatist does? But what does that have to do with what we are talking
about?" What did I say that would make you think I would like that? You
say, "All I 'want' is the debate with other peoples opinions, what I don't
want is a 'debate' with logic and numbers (which are objective - independent
of people)," I would say, "Yeah, sure, but doesn't part of the blurring your
doing by taking the emphasis off of logic, off of the "hyper-rationalist
idea," mean that everything we discuss our people's opinions (on a continuum
of more to less agreed upon)? That the word objective, as you just used it,
is meaningless?"
I guess the last note I have is on the notion of "pre-cognitive stuff."
That would certainly be a "crux issue," and I would certainly deny you the
mantle of "pragmatist" if you continued on with it. Pragmatists just have
no idea what you could talk about, since talking is all post-cognitive.
Matt
_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 2.1.5 : Tue Jan 18 2005 - 21:23:33 GMT