From: abahn@comcast.net
Date: Sun Sep 14 2003 - 03:43:05 BST
David,
I don't agree that Matt uses anymore unnecessary jargon than any other member in
the group. You missed the point of the previous post. I understood Matt's
vocabulary BEFORE I read Rorty. Regardless, I can remember many posts from a
while back between you and several others going on about Wilber. Needless to
say I was lost and I had to do some real hard thinking as well as a little
outside homework. I am not complaining. I am often stumbling over many of the
MOQ posters chosen vocabulary. Just a few weeks ago I was dumbfounded about
Scott's use of the word materialism. It took several posts to figure out what
in the hell he was refering to. Then, all the sudden David M and others are
bantering about essentialism and nominalism and once again I am confused by the
vocabulary. I have to do some hard thinking once again. Matt's use of Rorty
for a lense to read Pirsig is not any different than any other member in this
discussion group. I think you know that, but for some unknown reason you just
have to single him out for a hardtime. Well, on second thought, we know the
reason. You are arrogant and lazy. :-)
Regards,
Andy
> Matt and Andy:
>
> Andy said:
> I just wanted to say that I never read Rorty until after I read Matt's
> confession post from over a year ago. I had no trouble understanding his
> "jargon" at the time. I think I have said it before, but the fault in your
> not understanding Matt has to be shared by you also. Since I respect your
> intellect, I attribute your lack of understanding to laziness and arrogance.
>
> dmb says:
> Its true. I'm lazy, at least when it comes to reading books that do not
> interest me. That's why I don't want to read Rorty. (Actuallly, I first
> encountered him twenty years ago and never did like it. Pragmatism has
> always struck me as accomplishment of epic proportions. It somehow manages
> to be even more superficial and boring that ultilitarianism. ) If this were
> a Rorty discussion group, I should be ashamed, but its not. And as you
> admit, the jargon was confusing until you did read Rorty. And its also true
> that I'm arrogant. At least I think it must be true because so many people
> have said it. But I don't see it in this case. How do my repeated pleas for
> ordinary language make me look arrogant? I think Matt is so tangled up in
> linguistic philosophy that he's forgotten how to talk in a way that reaches
> out. Should I really have to read a set of books simply to carry on a
> conversation? No, that's not reasonable.
>
>
> 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 : Sun Sep 14 2003 - 03:43:40 BST