MD Politics of MOQ Discuss

From: Ant McWatt (antmcwatt@hotmail.co.uk)
Date: Tue Mar 22 2005 - 00:28:08 GMT

  • Next message: Ant McWatt: "MD Contradictions"

    Dan Glover stated to Matt K March 20th 2005:

    You probably fail to realize it, but like Platt and his recent rants against
    rock and roll, you are definitely insulting me with postings like your
    recent two-parter and your "Philosophology" essay.

    Matt K replied to Dan March 20th 2005:

    What could you possibly know about me as a philosopher, student, and person
    to question my honesty and sincerity, let alone my professional integrity?
    Remember, it’s a mark of professionalism to make honest efforts at
    understanding. Do you think I’m _lying_ when I say in "Confessions" that I
    was obsessed with Pirsig long before I even knew who Rorty was? Do you
    really think I’m lying when I tell you that I became obsessed with Pirsig
    _before_ I knew anything about philosophy, when I was a first-semester
    freshman taking Philosophy 101, and that it was an obsession with _Pirsig_
    that led me around to reading other philosophy, that it was an obsession
    with _Pirsig_ that led me to read Rorty, the supposed person who’s rotting
    my brain?

    Ant McWatt comments:

    Matt,

    I thought you recently stated to Marsha that this wasn’t a fan site?

    Anyway, in an effort to further your understanding about why some people
    seem dismissive of your work on MOQ Discuss, I have made some comments in
    regard to your recent post with Dan. Firstly, your emphasis on being
    obsessed with Pirsig's philosophy is slightly disturbing to read. Though
    not always easy, I think it is always healthy to try and keep a distance
    between one’s own beliefs and a particular philosopher’s – whoever it is.

    It was a matter of concern therefore that our conversation (early last year)
    concerning Rorty’s critics (such as Ronald Pine and Larry Laudan) was not
    continued further especially as I had put in a lot of “time and energy…
    producing evidence, fashioning arguments, developing interpretations and
    merging them all together in extended” posts. If the conversation had
    continued, I was hoping that you might return to a more balanced and
    impartial view of Rorty’s work and avoid attaching your views too closely
    with him (or with any other philosopher, for that matter).

    As you state to Dan, “It’s a mark of professionalism to make honest efforts
    at understanding” and if (as you also stated to him) criticism is something
    like negative suffering, then isn't this also an integral part of the
    expansion of Rorty’s philosophy? That only after engaging his critics such
    as myself, David Buchanan, David E. Cooper, Pine or Laudan, that Rorty’s
    philosophy will become stronger? As you state “Whatever doesn’t kill us
    will only make us stronger?” so your recent comment to David B that you
    weren’t continuing your conversation with him rather strikes me as a rather
    contradictory sentiment for a self-espoused pragmatist of a Rortyan bent.

    Matt K also stated to Dan March 20th 2005:

    I just don’t understand how people can be so dismissive of all the work I’ve
    put in to understanding Pirsig, and then have the nerve to call _me_
    dishonest. Do you really think I’m doing this for fun? That I’m just doing
    this to annoy everyone here? You could say that about certain others, like
    perhaps Struan [the patronising “professional”], who just seemed to like to
    come on and say nasty things. But I think, given all available evidence,
    there are few people who are as obsessed about Pirsig as I am, who are as
    obsessed in trying to make Pirsig matter.

    Ant McWatt comments:

    As my hard work (from last year) concerning Rorty wasn’t obviously
    appreciated by you (and “Andy Bahn” evidently…), you have to understand why
    I, for one, am rather reluctant to engage seriously with any of your new
    extended essays and posts. Moreover, the fact that you had an essay titled
    "Philosophologology: An Inquiry into the Study of the Love of Wisdom" and
    deemed to change your e-mail address on MOQ.org last year to a pejorative
    one regarding Pirsig does also rather undermine your claim that you are not
    “doing this to annoy everyone here.” Possibly, it shouldn’t be too
    surprising then that some people on MOQ Discuss (which, remember, was set-up
    for people keen on Pirsig’s work) tend to be dismissive of your essays and
    posts.

    Matt K further stated to Dan March 20th:

    Who knows? Maybe Rorty is a blight on the land and Pirsig’s literal word is
    the Way and the Truth.

    Ant McWatt comments:

    And, of course, the real truth of the matter lies somewhere in between.

    Best wishes,

    Anthony

    ===========================

    Knobe: How would you have liked your books to be received? How, for example,
    might future philosophers continue your project?

    Rorty: I don't see it as a unified project. I've written books over the
    years, expressing changes in views of this and that, and it's always nice if
    somebody finds them interesting, but it doesn't seem to me to represent a
    trend or to elaborate a project.

    From “A Talent for Bricolage: An Interview with Richard Rorty”

    by Joshua Knobe, “The Dualist”, Issue 2, 1995, pp.56-71

    .

    _________________________________________________________________
    Stay in touch with absent friends - get MSN Messenger
    http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger

    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 Mar 22 2005 - 00:32:01 GMT