From: Ian Glendinning (ian@psybertron.org)
Date: Tue Feb 15 2005 - 23:07:25 GMT
Matt, very briefly ...
Just another linguistic problem ...
By convergence I wasn't suggesting the end game was agreement, more
agreement to disagree and understand why.
(Realist, pragmatist, whatever - the isms are part of the problem, not the
solution.)
Ian.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt Kundert" <pirsigaffliction@hotmail.com>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2005 7:13 PM
Subject: RE: MD Linguistics (Was Kantian etc ...)
> Hey Ian,
>
> Ian said:
> Philosophy / Physics, Meta or not - the question is the same, "how does
> that work ?" - the answer ought to be the same the closer we get to
> agreement, the only difference being the language used IMHO. This "great
> convergence" is often pooh-poohed by expert / specialists, but I think it
> is real in these days of mass communication.
>
> Matt:
> Maybe, but I doubt there is any reason to say think that, _in general_,
> there will be a "great convergence." Pragmatists eschew such
> Peircian/Habermasian-like claims. For instance, I doubt we will ever
> reach convergence on whether or not "Seinfeld" was a good show or not. Or
> whether blonds are more fun. When agreement happens, it happens. If it
> doesn't, it doesn't. There are no general reasons to think that any line
> of inquiry will end in absolute agreement. So might, others might not.
> In academics, we've found over the years that fields called "scientific"
> tend to converge and fields called "literary" or "humanisitic" don't, but
> that's still not a reason to think that all scientific theories will
> converge in the end and literary theories won't.
>
> Ian said:
> I'm reading Searle's "Mind - A Brief Introduction" - I impatiently
> crticised him in some earlier blog posts, but I have to say he talks about
> as much common sense as I've seen in a long time. I don't think he'd
> disagree with the synthesis above, even if you feel I may be stretching
> it.
>
> Matt:
> Eew, Searle. Yeah, he may agree with you above on the whole "great
> convergence" thing, but that's because, as far as I know, Searle's still a
> realist, as opposed to a pragmatist. I think he dovetails on a number of
> topics in the philosophy of language and mind with pragmatist renderings
> of those fields, but he's still a hold out on a few positions.
>
> Matt
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
> http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/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
>
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 : Wed Feb 16 2005 - 00:10:22 GMT