From: MATTHEW PAUL KUNDERT (mpkundert@students.wisc.edu)
Date: Sat Sep 06 2003 - 20:32:42 BST
Andy, Scott,
Andy said:
No disrespect intended to Scott, in fact I don't blame him for not continuing to engage you in conversation, but I still like this post.
SQ: "I have tried to engage Scott but it's not been easy. The door was slammed in my face, in the same way that anyone who lives in fear slams the door against a perceived threat. The basis of this threat is to social status; if one feels admitting one is in error is to lose social status, then one may be driven to climb increasing heights of absurdity to defend the indefensible. It may be that such an individual eventually ends up on the top of Everest?"
I have to admit I have felt the same way in my conversations with Scott, but I also have the feeling he may end up on top of Everest. Then it would be I, down below, looking up from the social level.
Matt:
You could have just as easily have replaced Scott's name with mine and Squonk's accusation would not have changed. Now, I have not followed Scott and Squonk's exchange. I do not know the particulars, or even the generalities. But from my conversations with Scott, I do know he is intelligent and well-thought, even if he is way, way too far out for me. Sqounk's accusations are the same he tried pasting on me: ohh, look at this guy. Just out for recognition and afraid of losing friends.
Unlike some people, I don't think such ad hominem speculations are out of court. I've read my Nietzsche and Freud and I agree with them. However, as fun and sometimes illuminating as it is 1) I don't think you can quite procure enough evidence from this e-mail list for such speculations to actually hold any water, instead they turn into a smear campaign and 2) looking at the evidence that is procured, I can't say that I've noticed anything of the kind that Squonk has said in Scott. I'll let others judge for me.
What I like about Scott is his understanding of metaphilosophy. Scott and I circle each other because there's really nothing else we can do on certain topics, but we do exchange meaningful words. And we both understand this. We communicate and refine each other's opinions about the other. I don't find this with many other people here. They think Scott and I are being irrational and defeatist, spiraling out towards absurd views. Well, part of holding a position is making sure you realize its consequences. Absurdity is achieved when one belief is in tension with another belief in your web of beliefs. Its a clear sign of incoherence. You have two options when this happens: 1) Choose the old belief or choose the new belief. From the angle of people who choose that new belief, watching a person choose the old one is like watching a person shrink back in fear of something distasteful. From the angle of people who choose that old belief, watching a person choose the new
one is like watching a person go insane. (The Pirsig connection should be clear.) Today's absurdities are sometimes tommorrow's common sense.
Matt
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 : Sat Sep 06 2003 - 20:59:53 BST