Re: MD Rhetoric

From: David M (davidint@blueyonder.co.uk)
Date: Thu Oct 20 2005 - 21:55:26 BST

  • Next message: ian glendinning: "Re: MD Cybernetics and sq evolution - Secondary ontology as harmony."

    Hi Matt

    see comments from DM

    David said:
    Something very pre-conceptual but very knowledgeable as Nietzsche pointed
    out -your body! Ignoring the body makes you and Rorty look like idealists to
    me.

    Matt:
    I don't understand what you mean---who's ignoring the body? In other words,
    answering the question that way is a non sequitor, it doesn't answer the
    question. You can only answer that way after you've brushed aside such
    questions---which you have to do before that and I was contending hasn't
    happened.

    Maybe you have previously brushed aside the skeptic appropriately, but
    that's besides the point here. We were not talking about you here, we were
    talking about Pirsig and DMB and stepping up with an answer like that is
    confusing and obfuscates the point I'm trying to make (a point you, in some
    sense, should be congenial with).

    DM: "Mum he doesn't play fair!" Funny thing is that you would say it is
    interpretation all the way down but then also claim to be a physicalist,
    i.e claiming that there is one form of description that can encompass
    all other description. Very odd marriage. I admit a bit of a leap here,
    but why so freaked? Are you a ironist control freak? Pirsig does not refer
    to the body much, but he does say you cannot relate mind and matter if
    you leave out all the levels in between, so the body so in that inbetween
    for
    sure.

    David said:
    I know of no good reason why we cannot tell cosmic stories.

    Matt:
    In a general sense, neither do I. But that's not the question. I'm not
    objecting to telling cosmic stories. The question is, why do we have to?
    Or, more appropriately, why do _I_ have to?

    DM: I just said that's why I prefer Pirsig to the self-restrained Rorty.

    David said:
    John Dupre, Stanford Prof of Phil of Science, argues that materialism
    without reductionism is meaningless in The Disorder of Things, you really
    need to read this & free your mind.

    Matt:
    Well, sure, but you should really read some of the stuff I do and free your
    mind.

    DM: You read the Dupre and I will read your suggestion.

    See how ineffectual that is?

    DM: If I was you I would read it and come back and kick my ass.

     Oh sure, you can say, "But Matt, I _do_ read
    the stuff you do," but until you've walked, per impossible, a mile in my
    shoes, and I've walked, per impossible, a mile in yours, we can both
    continue telling the other person to "wake up" from here to eternity.

    DM: I think I know where you are, you sound alot like I did a few years
    ago. I think there is a path away from where you are I can offer, up to you
    to take a look or not.

    Doesn't really help the process or add any content to the recommendation.
    Actually, it pretty much assures the person will ignore you, given the note
    of superiority and condescension it almost inevitably sends (at least in
    contexts like this).

    DM: do you get these feelings a lot? Maybe you can't see my British tongue
    in my Britsh cheek.

    But for the record, I don't think materialism without reductionism is
    meaningless (unless you take "reductionism" to be coextensive with the use
    of any particular vocabulary), its simply trivial.

    DM: Well maybe you should take a look at how that works in
    relation to actual scientific practice, i.e the Dupre book.

    Matt said:
    the ole' Millian, democratic point that what you do in your free time is up
    to you. All we need is the very simple, commonsensical point against
    elitism, "different strokes for different folks."

    David said:
    What is this evil non-free time your implying? Makes you think doesn't it?

    Matt:
    I have no idea what you're saying here, so I'm not really sure what I should
    be thinking about. What "evil non-free time" am I implying? Where do you
    see that implied? It seems a very strange thing to say.

    DM: Now you are humiliating yourself.You say 'free time', well if some time
    is free what is the other kind? It's been fun messing about with you, play
    is
    fun, as long as you are not a control freak. Are you?

    _________________________________________________________________
    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

    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 : Thu Oct 20 2005 - 23:35:02 BST