RE: MD Begging the Question, Moral Intuitions, and Answering the Nazi, Part III

From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sat Nov 01 2003 - 23:34:50 GMT

  • Next message: David Buchanan: "MD Two theories of truth"

    Matt and all MOQers:

    DMB said:
    ... I think Matt has been stretching the definitions of key terms to the
    point where they no longer recognizable. The result is that we have just one
    term to refer to two completely different concepts. I mean, one might try to
    explain how and why it is NOT a gross distortion to describe Dynamic Quality
    as "a compliment". And there was also the far less complicated case, where
    Matt wanted us to pretend that he really meant "follow a line of thought"
    when he used the phrase "align our thoughts". This kind of thing is not only
    confusing, its dishonest.

    Matt replied:
    Its clear that DMB no longer trusts me. He thinks I'm out to deceive
    people. I don't know why he thinks so, I'm not sure why anybody would even
    want to deceive others. What's the point? Its just a philosophy discussion
    group.

    dmb says:
    You don't know why? Really? Switching "follow a line" for "aligning your
    thoughts" doesn't strike you as dishonest? (Not to mention the fact that
    this sophistry was an evasive ploy in the first place.) I wonder how you'd
    feel if the situation were reversed. Would you take me as sincere and honest
    if I now tried to explain that "dishonest" is a word I use ironically and it
    really refers to "a brilliant insight into the vaccuous nature of
    intellectual morality" or whatever? Obviously, only a fool could take such
    backtracking seriously. Why would anybody be pointlessly deceptive in a
    discussion group? I don't know, dude. To cover one's butt, I suppose. You
    tell me.

    Matt adds insult to injury:
    But never fear. I still trust DMB. I'm pretty sure that he means and
    believes every arrogant and ignorant thing he says. If he didn't, wouldn't
    that simply be Limbaugh-like defamation? To put the trust back in our
    relationship, I think its suffice to say that from either of our
    perspectives, the other is ignorant.

    dmb says:
    OK. Let's say we are both ignorant. I haven't read much Rorty for lots of
    reasons. Mostly, I'm responding to what is written here, which I have read.
    But you know what? This site does not require us to read Rorty. We are here
    to discuss Pirsig and are required to have read his books. So it seems to me
    that my ignorance of Rorty is irrelevant, but your distortions of Pirsig
    (using Rorty) is extremely relevant. I mean, for the purposes of discussing
    the MOQ, Richard Rorty is completely un-necessary. But as a discussion
    group, it is very necessary that we use Pirsig's terms as accurately as
    possible. That's why is bugs me so much when DQ is construed as "a
    compliment". This is the work of a hack, of someone who has no business
    comparing ideas. It simply defies the descriptions of the author. Imagine
    Pirsig writing, "Once DQ is associated with compliments it produces an
    avalanche of information as to what DQ is". Its ridiculous! Religious
    mysticism and compliments aren't even close to being interchangable,
    synonmous or even vaguely similar. In a discussion group this sort of thing
    is nothing but a monkey wrench in the works. Its the opposite of helpful, a
    distracting waste of time.

    But I don't think you're ignorant so much as you're a tragic victim of the
    Cleveland Harbor effect and this (DQ=a compliment) is just one example of
    this kind of misreading. You're reading Pirsig as if he were a neo-prag and
    thereby misunderstanding his actual point. You're lost. You are convinced
    that you know exactly where you are, but you're not even on the same body of
    water. The very first and most important split in the MOQ is between Dynamic
    and static and you have equated one with the other! Its ridiculous. And when
    I complain about it, you can only call me names, shrugg, give up or
    otherwise evade the issue.

    Thanks,
    Rush Limbaugh (with talent on loan from God)

    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 Nov 01 2003 - 23:37:32 GMT