Re: MD What makes an idea dangerous?

From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Tue Oct 28 2003 - 18:02:50 GMT

  • Next message: David MOREY: "Re: MD What makes an idea dangerous?"

    Hi Matt
    My interest in metaphysics is to look at
    the existence of this capacity for drawing
    lines in the sand. To understand the ontology of
    existence is to describe this cutting of the sand
    and the games that result in this activity. These
    are the metaphysical-ontological assumptions of
    pragmatism that are not discussed. I think Pirsig
    has the same interest in a non-essentialist metaphysics.
    Taking a holist stance is metaphysics, how does Rorty justify
    his holism?

    Also, I can't imagine Rorty talking in some of the ways you suggest below.
    I might dig out some interview quotes at the weekend.

    regards
    David M

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "MATTHEW PAUL KUNDERT" <mpkundert@students.wisc.edu>
    To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 2:15 AM
    Subject: Re: MD What makes an idea dangerous?

    > David,
    >
    > David said:
    > I take the Rorty-reader to say that the two cultures have different values
    and that you cannot say one is superior to the other. They have different
    language games and live in different worlds. I have heard Rorty take a
    position of 'no way to judge' in respect of so-called primitive cultures.
    >
    > Matt:
    > This isn't quite right, though many have interpreted Rorty as saying this.
    Rorty says that we cannot judge either culture to be _transcendentally_
    superior, or objectively superior. This is because we cannot "leap out of
    our skins" or take Putnam's "God's eye view" or take the view from nowhere.
    As you say, we are always in a contingent time and place. However, this
    does not still our judging heart, nor should it, nor could it. As ironists,
    we enjoy meeting new people and exchanging views. But I think Rorty's point
    is that some views are simply beyond the pale, things we simply cannot put
    up with and still get a decent night's sleep without being awoken by
    nightmares of people eating babies.
    >
    > The Rortyan position is not about silence at all. Its about continuing
    the conversation. Rorty doesn't know what it would be like to give up
    binary thinking. We can make anything and everything into a binary. The
    trick is to not think that a pair of poles gets at the way reality really
    is. This is why I think Pirsig is right to say that reality is a pile of
    sand that we can split into two in any infinite number of ways. This is
    Pirsig agreeing with Rorty's point about the game of redescription and
    recontextualization. I think Pirsig is wrong, however, to think of this as
    still playing metaphysics (taken in the Platonic tradition). Pragmatists
    agree with Pirsig that there is no perfect opening in metaphysics. We take
    this as the suggestion that we should stop doing metaphysics. Metaphysics
    is the game of constructing the perfect game, a transcendental game in which
    you'll always win, thereby precluding the need to continue playing the game.
    Pragmatists take Pirsig'
    > s suggestions as breaking the spell, as suggesting that there can be no
    winner. Whatever game we play after that, though, one thing is for sure, it
    is not metaphysics. It is a de-transcendentalized game of redescription,
    each person trying to make the other's position look bad. The trick of
    pragmatist philosophy is to keep cutting the sand until you come up with a
    cut that is more useful, looks better. This is, essentially, the same game
    that philosophers have been playing, except that pragmatists drop the
    pretention that the object of the game is to stop playing. Pragmatists
    don't think the game will ever stop.
    >
    > 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
    >
    >

    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 : Tue Oct 28 2003 - 18:06:38 GMT