From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Fri Sep 30 2005 - 06:47:11 BST
Matt --
> It would almost appear that by "philosophologist,"
> as you've used it in your posts, you mean "Matt
> Kundert." I mean, it is more than your perogative
> to define good philosophical practice as the
> reduction of terms to a tiny few, but on the
> way towards that reduction, are you going to be
> so Stalinesque as to tell your philosophy buddies
> helping you that, "Uh, no we can't use your term
> because I've already delimited the set of five we're
> going to be using from now on."
You've misconstrued my meaning, Matt. It's not the words that annoy me;
it's the notion that language and labels are all there is. One illustration
of that kind of thinking is in your note to DMB of 9/26:
> If I were forwarding the former, metaphysical
> (appearance/reality) claim, that there can be no
> pre-intellectual experience because I've discovered
> that the nature of reality is that it is all linguistic
> (which is, roughly, what idealism claims), then you
> might have a beef. But all I'm claiming is that, in
> philosophy, all we are ever going to do when we
> try and "get everything to hang together in a coherent
> way" is talk about the various ways in which we
> can talk because that's all we ever could do....
For one thing, I don't know any idealists who claimed that "the nature of
reality is that it is all linguistic". I consider myself an idealist.
Idealism is not about words and definitions but about ideas and values.
When you say "getting everything together in a coherent way" is "all we can
do", the implication is that one judges a philosophy by the arrangement of
words in a thesis. Surely there is something to be said for the concept
considered apart from the semantics. I have nothing against the use of
words, but in reading philosophy I expect that the worlds used will convey
an idea or conception that (hopefully) will be insightful for me. Don't
you?
> You say that I shouldn't be so "cavalier," but what has
> always struck me about your posts is how cavalier _you_
> are in assuming what counts as good or bad, right or
> wrong philosophy. You seem to assume that you have
> the correct standard and that everyone else is naturally,
> by virtue of existing I guess, on the same page--they just
> need to be brought up to speed. I think you need to be
> more sensitive to the desires of others, though.
I'm always open to criticism -- in fact, I'm seeking it in this forum. If I
come across as pompous or judgmental, it may be because I'm annoyed with the
responder's attitude, not his or her philosophy. I have never consciously
set myself up as a "standard", nor do I believe there is a "right" or
"wrong" philosophy. I assure you that my intent is only to expand the
reader's vision by opening a door to what may be a new way of looking at the
life experience. If this approach doesn't work, or if the reader shows no
interest, I'll fold up my tent like the Arabs and terminate the conversation
peacefully.
> Even people who think Pirsig is mostly wrong show more
> sensitivity to the way he views himself. This imperialistic
> insensitivity is what leads you to mention, laughably, Scott,
> Mark H, Anthony, DMB, Arlo and myself in the same breath
> as "stalwart loyalists of the MoQ."
I cited these particular names for Rebecca not because you all think alike
but because you've all been involved with the MoQ long enough to understand
"what Pirsig is up to" far more than I do, and have the ability to
articulate your interpretation of it very well.
> You refrain from trying to understand _why_ these
> philosophers behave the way they do and just assume
> they've given up on life. Its exactly this understanding
> that is needed before one can condemn another's form
> of life without being called, in real world,
> common sense parlance, a "judgemental bore."
Actually, I do want to "understand" you, Matt; and much of what you see as
my "insensibility" is my difficulty getting beyond the outpouring of words
to see what real convictions lie beneath them. Condemnation is a pretty
severe accusation. I haven't the authority or the intention to "condemn"
anyone.
You haven't denied that you are a nihilist, yet you want me to define it for
you. You probably expect me to do this comparatively, in terms of
philosophers like Bertrand Russell, Foucault, Derrida, and this Barfield
fellow. But, you see, if I'm to learn from you I have to know what you
stand for, what you believe in, what value means to you -- not relative to
some other thinker, but from the thoughts of Matt Kundert himself. For me
Philosophy is an individual belief system, largely self-developed but
enhanced by the ideas of others who share similar concepts. My interest is
in the concepts themselves, not the individuals or the schools by which they
are catalogued in the history books.
> But the question my last post was trying to get you to
> think about is where things like "awareness" and
> "consciousness" are given to us. Who tells us what
> awareness is so that we can say with certainty, "Oh no,
> Matt. That's not consciousness or awareness
> at all." Do you tell us? Do past philosophers tell us?
> Does common sense tell us? Does our experience of life tell us?
I have thought about consciousness and awareness for over half a century,
Matt. Because it's central to my thesis, I've concentrated on the
psychological theories of Jung, Freud, James, Watson, Maslow, and Rollo May.
So when you ask "Who tells us what awareness is?" after lecturing to me on
the experience of rocks, I'll admit to being somewhat baffled.
We're all proponents of our own worldview, and it's only human nature to
argue for those issues that are fundamental to that view. My philosophy of
Essence starts from the premise that conscious awareness, unlike anything
else in the experienced world, is proprietary to the individual. The idea
is self-evident...empirical...beyond literary reproach. Yet, I've learned
from the MD that my biggest challenge is getting this across to you folks.
I've had less trouble gaining acceptance for a primary source from a bunch
of atheists, for Pete's sake.
The first thing I'm hit with is: "Oh, Cartesianism was excoriated two
centuries ago." And that usually ends the discussion. If Descartes
couldn't make it work, why should I even try, is the general consensus.
There's that damnable 'cubbyhole of history' again, blocking the road to new
insight on the subject. Do they even bother to hear me out? No. It's
"Pirsig says" time. And we all know that individual awareness meant nothing
to Pirsig. Yes, I can get annoyed by closed minds, and I suppose it does
tend to make me appear insensitive.
Okay, now I've reciprocated by laying it out on the line for you. Do we
understand each other any better? Probably not. But, hey, we're making
words; and that's more important to you than concepts any day. Right, Matt?
Cheers,
Ham
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 : Fri Sep 30 2005 - 07:24:37 BST