From: abahn@comcast.net
Date: Sun Sep 28 2003 - 13:35:11 BST
Hi David,
I regret this announcement but effective immediately I am resigning as your
official Rorty translator. It is obvious I am no qualified for the position.
You have set your standards too high.
DMB: "I feel compelled to report a feeling and wonder if anyone can relate. Once
in a while a translation such as this breaks through and I begin to see.
Normally breakthroughs in understanding are an exceptionally thrilling
event, so much so that its one of the main reasons I enjoy discussions. But
when ever a Rortyism breaks through it is an entirely different sensation. I
feel disappointed and completely underwhelmed. I can later translate those
feelings into words to a certain extent, but they are quite spontaneous and
beyond my conscious control. But in words it goes something like, "oh.
That's a nice thought, but so what?" We should strive together to achieve
our hopes?Sure. That's not something I'd ever disagree with, but it has a
certain After-school-special kind of feel to it. Its kinda Hallmarky, don't
you think."
Andy: Yes it is. But isn't this the purpose of a slogan. I gave it my best
tranlation and, like an idiot, I forgot the "Ahhhhh" part. I forgot to
translate the feeling I got from reading Rorty. I only included the literal
translation and even this was poor. But, aren't you being a bit unfair.
You are a Campbell fan. Not only that, but you have read enough of him to
consider yourself an expert. I haven't. But I have read enough of him to have
captured that feeling. That "Oh Wow" and then sort of giddy tingling where my
whole universe suddenly seems to expand. Now suppose someone said to me "I
don't get it? Please translate 'follow your bliss' for me." This would be my
best effort.
Well, what Campbell is saying is that every individual has their own path. And
what each individual needs to do discover this path inside of them. It is
really their inner light. Or it is what makes them the most happy. Whatever
this is this is the path each individual must follow.
I hope you are squirming in your chair right now, because this obvious misses
the whole experience of reading Campbell. For someone with a mindset that wants
to dismiss everything Campbell ever said and who believes he just gets it wrong
every single time, the reaction to the above translation is going to be bitter.
ANd in their attempt to belittle Campbell they will also belittle me, because
I was the one who had the "ah-haa" experience. I was the one who made the
translation. One criticism they might make, following you, would be to say,
"Really? well what is so profound about that? I mean isn't this obvious that
everyone should just do what they like? Hello? ah, Duhhhh."
Now, let me translate the "ah-haa" part. Since I like river analogies. I was
standing on the American side of Niagara Falls. I was completely mesmerized.
In a state of awe standing before the power of the falls. I was completely
enthralled in the beauty, the power, and the glory of nature. What Rorty did
was say, "I know you find the falls really amazing from your view, but you
should really come on over to the Canadian side." So, I followed Rorty over to
the Canadian side and he was right. I stood in amazement before the falls once
again, but this time from another perspective, so it was all brand new once
more. Well, you know what? I want to view the falls from every single
perspective. I want someone to take me in that boat that gets sprayed from the
mist of Niagara. I want to go under the falls. Anyway I can view it, I want to
see it. Meanwhile, I keep hearing people say I am wasting my time. You think
you are amazed but it is always the same Niagara falls. Your experience of
viewing the falls is trivial. There is nothing new or special about the view
from the canadian side or any side for that matter. The only way to experience
the falls is to get yourself a barrel, go upstream a bit and launch yourself
into the river. Then you will know what Niagara falls is all about. The funny
part is that the people saying this never actually got into a barrel themselves.
They have only been wandering around the falls also. Preaching about the
wonder of the real risk-takers. Telling everyone to go grab a barrel.
I really don't care what you think of Rorty, but you have gotten many things
wrong about him. I can't translate him and I can't promise you will find
anything worthwhile if you read him firsthand. But, your insinuation that
"substituting hope for knowledge" is trite not only insults Rorty, but also
anyone who gained a small bit of inspiration from this phrase.
DMB: "And I say all this as a sincere effort to probe further. The
phrase "Substituting hope for knowledge" seems to have a great deal of
meaning for those who use it. I have been given an explanation that leads me
to think that it doesn't mean much at all, that its a trite little truism.
Can you explain the difference in these views? Please allow me to assure you
that this probing is not a game and I'm not asking about this for "kicks"."
Andy: Ok, you are sincere. but the above is the best I can do. I can only
offer the analogy with Campbell and Niagara falls. Please don't ask me to
translate them for you. (and I am not being hostile, just a bit tired and
frustrated).
DMB: "Maybe you recall a criticism I put out on the table a few weeks ago. I
complained that Pragmatism manages to be even more boring and superficial
than Utilitarianism. That expressed the same underwhelming feeling that I'm
trying to describe here. Those are harsher words and so it may have sounded
like a mere insult, but again, it was sincere."
Andy: If you reduce any philosophy down to literal translations of slogans it
will be boring and superficial. But, I have not gotten this feeling from
reading Rorty or James. THis is the problem when we bring philosophys to the
table. We have to reduce them down. But I am not even sure what pragmatism is.
I mean I know a few slogans like "more useful" and "substituting hope for
knowledge", but when I bring these to the table I have to leave most of
pragmatism behind. I have a book (a reader) called "Pragmatism" edited by Louis
Menand. In it he has articles by Charles Sanders Peirce, William James, Oliver
Wendell Holmes, John Dewey, Jane Addams, George Herbert Mead, Richard Rorty,
Hilary Putnam, Steven Knapp and Walter Benn Michaels, Richard Bernstein, Cornel
West, Richard A. Posner, Richard Poirer and Joyce Appleby, Lynn Hunt and
Margaret Jacob. I don't know how to run a thread through all of these articles.
They are not all talking about the same thing. All I know is I can't bring
them all to the table for our discussion, so I have to instead rely on a few
slogans. It is the best I can do.
So if you say pragmatism manages to be more boring and superficial than
utilitarianism I have to cop out. My translations are bound to be boring to
you. If we had some common things which we read to talk about it might be
different. But instead of going out and reading something someone might bring
to the table you ask for translations. Or you search the internet for reviews
and critiques. I know there is not enough time in the day. We all have to
choose the best way to fill our time. But, if you want to probe, you have to do
some effort also. I can't translate anymore.
Regretfully (or not),
Andy
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 28 2003 - 13:41:58 BST