From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sat Apr 02 2005 - 22:16:27 BST
Matt and all MOQers:
Matt Kundert said to dmb:
I think our last two posts are pretty good examples of what happens at the
end of a conversation. You're bewilderment over my inability to see some
pretty plain facts is only matched by my bewilderment over our inability to
continue the conversation. As far as I can see, the communication breakdown
is well-nigh total, which is why all the talk about "blind spots" and such.
You can't get through to me that I have Western tunnel vision that causes me
to see all philosophies as Western philosophies, whereas I can't help but
think that you're missing the point that, even if philosophies are homegrown
away from other influences, they may still run into similar problems. You
can't seem to convince me that philosophy has a moral responsibility that
the MoQ fulfills, and I can't seem to convince you that philosophy has
little direct bearing on our politics, and that instead it's our politics
that fulfills our moral responsibility. ("Bogged down in old problems? You
mean old philosophical problems, don't you? Is that really of more concern
than the practical effects and implications of the worldview he offers?"
No, of course not, but once you let go of those concerns, you've let go of
philosophy and entered politics.) You boggle at my inability to see that
Pirsig's adding to pragmatism, while I can't understand why you don't see
that, while I'm aware that Pirsig thinks he's adding to pragmatism, I think
he's wrong.
dmb replies:
It seems to me that the only way to continue the conversation is to
specifically address what I actually said. I mean, you tend to respond by
characterizing what I've said in rather vague and general terms. In this
case your response is so unresponsive that I had to go back and read my own
post in order to try to figure out what you're reacting to. Having done
that, its still very hard to see what you're trying to say. And for pete's
sake, will you please stop taking my point about a cultural "blindspot" as a
personal condemnation. I mean, it seems to me that the conversation only
comes to an end for reasons that have a lot more to do with your ability to
handle questions and objections rather than any genuine philosophical
impasse. More than one member has told me that they can see what you are
saying ONLY because of my questions and objections. So maybe you think it is
all quite pointless, but as far as I can tell you are about the only one who
sees it that way. For my own part, it seems like the conversation comes to a
screeching halt whenever these objection and questions cut too close.
Matt continued:
So I don't know where to go from there, David. I can simply reiterate my
claim that, for differences as deeply entrenched and thought out as ours,
one simply can't supply the needed evidence or argumentation for either side
in a 500 word post.
dmb says:
I would hereby propose that I try to make the point again from a different
angle. (below) Even if you choose to ignore it or respond again with vague
characterizations and resignations there is still the chance that others
will get something out of it. Before I do that, let me answer your final
comment...
Matt concluded:
You scoff at essays, but do you really think your evidence and arguments are
best splayed out over a three month, four thread, 62 post length of time?
Let alone the years you've been here?
dmb says:
From here it looks like you prefer to write essays because they allow the
reader no chance to ask questions or rasie objections. And the reason I
"scoff" at your essays is because they tend to start off with a mis-step
that is magnified as it goes on. I want you to talk TO me, not AT me. I want
a conversation, not a sermon. I have watched you freak out at the very
suggestion that you could be mistaken. And so I remain convinced that your
love for the essay forum is not really about creating a more sophisticated
presentation so much as avoiding those questions and objections.
In any case, let me try to make the point again. This time maybe you will
try to address the ideas specifically and directly. This time I want to
focus on one specific assertion that you made. You imagine that the dialogue
has come to an end because you can't convince me that "philosophy has little
direct bearing on our politics". And conversely you think I can't convince
you that it does have a direct bearing. Let's focus on that point, shall we?
Frankly, I think a person has to be fairly oblivious to deny the connection
between philosophy and politics. I think that anyone who keeps up with
current events could hardly fail to notice that contemporary philosophy is
overwhelmingly political. This is the point I was trying to make in
reminding you that conservatives feel they are under seige by the very
philosophy you are defending here. Just yesterday I recieve a request for
money from a WW2 veterans organization. They claimed an urgent neeed for
cash because of "pluralism", "political correctness" and
"multi-culturalism". I mean, being against the postmodern movement that
presently dominates our institutions of higher learning has real cash value
in our society. Its central to the culture wars so that the Republican Party
more or less defines itself by being against everything you're pushing. Ken
Wilber explains it this way. The emphasis is his...
"The extreme postmodernists do not just stress the importance of of
interpretations, they claim reality is NOTHING BUT AN INTERPRETATION. They
don't just emphasixe the interpretive aspects, THEY ATTEMPT TO DENY REALITY
TO THE OBJECTIVE FACETS. This, of course, is precisely the reverse disaster
of modernity - not reducing all Left to Right, but reducing all Right to
left - and we can see, as is frequently the case, that extreme reactions are
often the mirror images of what they loathe. The important features of the
Kosmos that are interpretive are made the ONLY features in existence.
Objective truth itself disappears into arbitrary interpretations, said to be
imposed by power, gender, race, ideology, anthropocentrism, androcentrism,
speciesism, imperialism, logocentrism, phallocentrism, phallologocentrism,
or one variety or another of utter unpleasantness."
We can see that postmodernism constitutes a very direct attack on the power
structures of our society in Wilber's words and I think anyone who has been
paying attention knows how politically explosive this movement has been. And
we can also see that Wilber is asserting that we should take the middle way,
the way that stands between naive realism and postmodern nihilism. And of
course the point of quoting Wilber is to show that Pirsig is not the only
one to see that third choice. But instead of just deconstructing the power
structures of the past, there has to be a construction project too. Instead
of declaring an end to philosophy, we ought to be putting the pieces back
together. I think this is what Pirsig, Wilber and others are trying to do.
See, One need not be a right-wing geezer crank. There is a honest to
goodness philosophical case to be made against this kind of paralyzing
nihilism. Ken Wilber again...
"This is why postmodern pluralist have always had difficulty explaining why
we should reject the Nazis and the KKK - if all stances are equal, why not
embrace them? Aperspectival madness.
Thus, under the important truths of relativism, pluralism and cultural
diversity, postmodernism opened up the world to a richness of multiple
voices, but then stood back to watch the multiple voices degenerate into a
Tower of Babel, each voice claiming to be its own validity, yet few of them
actually honoring the values of others. Each was free to go its own way,
whereupon everybody went in vigorously different ways. This did not
ultimately liberate the many pluralistic voices, as was claimed, but merely
sent them off, isolated and alienated, to the far cornerss of a fragmented
world, there to suckle themsleves in solituide, lost in the shuffle of
equivalent surfaces. Attempting to escape flatland (SOM), postmodernism
became its most vocal champion.
Constructive postmodernsim, on the other hand, takes up the multiple
contexts freed by pluralism, and then goes one step further and weaves them
together into mutually interrelated networks..."
This is the point I was getting at in saying that Pirsig accepts these
postmodern insights but doesn't just leave it hanging there. And here maybe
you can see what I mean by the suggestion that postmodernism hasn't really
escaped SOM. It rejects objectivity in favor of subjectivity, rejects the
myth of the given in favor of sheer interpretation. It doesn't get us out of
that box so much as move us to the opposite corner of the box. And more than
that, it does not solve the problems of modernity so much as exaggerate
them. Satanists think they have utterly rejected Christianity but have in
fact only embraced its mirror image.
You can choose to believe that these objections are only based on a
misunderstanding, but at least I have tried to show you specifically what it
is that you are not seeing. And I would point out that I am not the only
critic of this stance. As Ant mentioned, there is Pine for starters. But
even better are those who are actually trying to weave it all back together.
Wilber mentions Deirdre Kramer, Gisela Labouvie-Vief, Jan Sinnot, Don Beck,
Clare Graves, Susanne Cook-Greuter, Kitchener and King, Blanchard-Fields,
William Perry and Cheryl Armon among others.
But maybe you're right. Maybe there is no way we can ever talk about
anything because if you think postmodernism has no direct effect on politics
in this country and that these effects have not been in the news for the
last 15 years, then I can only wonder what planet you are on. If you really
can see that or admit that you see that, then I think you're right and we
have nothing to say to one another.
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 : Sun Apr 03 2005 - 01:20:54 BST