From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Mon Mar 10 2003 - 01:41:27 GMT
Matt the EE said:
This comment from DMB is in a larger context of him not understanding what
I write. But the way to understanding me is suggested by myself when I say
that I didn't understand Rorty when I first started reading him: read more.
Either more of the stuff I write or the stuff on which I talk about.
DMB says:
Yes, reading never hurts. I do alot of that. In fact, I've been reading ALL
your stuff for months. In the last year or so I've only blown off one
thread. Simply refering me to a bunch of books is not only a rude brush off,
its a way of avoiding the task of actually addressing my objections. I mean,
if I'm trying to understand YOU and what YOU are saying, wouldn't it be far
more efficient and simple to just ask YOU what you mean? I'm sorry that you
find it so tedious to explain yourself, but isn't that what we all do here
most of the time. Are my questions and objections too difficult for you?
(Yes, now I'm trying to goad you into a real response.)
Matt continued:
That's how anybody begins to understand anything. They find more and more
connections between things. Now, I kept reading Rorty because I felt there
was a pot of gold at the end of his rainbow. This is probably not the case
with DMB's feeling about me. So what do I suggest? Don't read my
writings. It really is that simple. This discussion group is about
discoursing on topics that the writers want to discourse on. You enter
into dialogues you want to. There isn't a mandatory rule that you have to
discuss things with everybody. Just ignore me. Its no skin off my teeth.
This is a voluntary discussion group where we talk about what we want.
DMB says:
That's all you got? Just ignore me? My philosophy love it or leave it? Is
that what you're saying? Well, that's not very sporting of you. (Yes, more
goading.) I don't want to ignore you. I want to comprehend what you're
saying. This is why I object to the technical jargon. This is why I ask you
to speak more simply and clearly. This is why I ask questions and raise
objections. And for the most part, my questons and objections are just a few
repeated over and over in different ways and its seems that you just can't
or won't answer them clearly and directly. Its always some kind of brush off
or a reassertion of the statements and ideas that confused me in the first
place. See, I think it is you who are already ignoring me. You're free to do
that, but I wish you wouldn't. Let me repeat the major questions...
Why not speak simply and clearly?
Why combine a mystical metaphysics with Rorty's anti-metaphysical ideas?
Why ignore the profound distinctions between religion and metaphysics?
Why do you hardly ever discuss the actual structure of the MOQ?
Why is Pirsig's non-technical use of the word "metaphysics" not legitimate?
Please don't refer me to your essay. I can't penetrate the jargon. It hurts.
It actually, physically hurts to try to read it. As my toothless uncle Bubba
says, "Talk normal, will ya!"
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 : Mon Mar 10 2003 - 01:42:51 GMT