From: abahn@comcast.net
Date: Sun Sep 28 2003 - 20:30:13 BST
Hi David,
DMB reacts to my resignation: "Really? I'm sad about that."
Andy: Well, remember, you are the one who decided that the pay was not going to
be very good. :o)
I will answer your question in the end, but first:
DMB" But as a fan I'd be happy to explain it to anyone who asked. I guess
my frustration with Rorty and Pragmatism comes from the assumption that
everyone feels that way about their intellectual heros; that they'd be happy
to explain away the trite interpretations and replace it with the version
that made them into a fan in the first place. I love to do that, but so far
it appears that each Rorty fan only resents such questions. I honestly don't
get that."
Andy: I was happy to explain. So was Matt. We have both tried. I have been
around listening in on Matt's go arounds with you for over a year. I think he
has provided a long and extensive explanation of Rorty. Now you even seem to
get the main points of Rorty, but instead of being intrugued you call these
points obvious and trivial. There are two possibilities. 1.) You ARE doing this
for kicks and simply wait for someone to give an explanation and then look for
where you can pounce on this without showing any mercy. Why? I suppose because
you just don't want to think there can be any benefits from combining Pirsig
with Rorty. You began with this position and you will be damned if you are
going to deviate from it (it's a matter of pride). However, you have denied
this and I believe you. You have said you are sincere in your wishes to only
understand. So we have 2.) You have already passed through a Rorty
understanding without any help from him. In other words, his perspective is
useless to you. You really would find Rorty trite is you read him. He has
nothing to offer you. This is OK. I wasn't so lucky. I couldn't figure this
out on my own. I had to be introduced to Rorty to see the world through his eyes.
Nevertheless, my translations cannot be much more help to you. I think you do
get it now. I think there is much more to Rorty than my translations, but I
can't promise you would find any inspiration from him if you did read him. But
I will give this one more try.
DMB: WHY DO WE NEED TO SUBSTITUTE KNOWLEDGE FOR HOPE [you mean 'hope for
knowledge']? I mean, WHY CAN'T WE HAVE BOTH?
Andy: Because, if knowledge is only what is agreed upon through consensus than
we would do BETTER if we substituted hope for it instead. It would be better if
we strove to achieve our dreams instead of discoverint Truths. Rorty does not
believe we can achieve anything by uncovering Truths. We should shoot for the
stars instead.
Regards,
Andy
Pragmatists think of moral progress as more like sewing together a very large
elaborate polychrome quilt, than like getting a clearer vision of something true
and deep.
Richard Rorty
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 - 20:36:03 BST