From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Sun Nov 02 2003 - 14:36:53 GMT
Hi
Personally I think Rorty is concerned with the philosophy
of language in a deeper and more thought-out way than
Pirsig, therefore as they are both questioning SOM there
is a lot to be gained from combining their insights. I think
Matt is with Pirsig and Rorty against SOM (which is a great
deal of western philosophy but forgets the other challengers
Whitehead, Bergson, Heidegger where they offer certain other
ways to walk away from it) but uncomfortable about Pirsig's
attempts to offer an alternative to SOM. We seem to be failing
to make progress in this discussion because those people
who have not read Rorty do not get the joint criticism of SOM,
they attack Rorty as if he does not reject SOM, which he does,
the real difference between Rorty and Pirsig is over where to move
to post-SOM. Rorty says we are in a happy and clear place where
we have removed SOM and do not need to move on, Pirsig wants
to clear the ground of SOM but move on to construct something new.
I think Pirsig is right to do this, man needs a house to live in I think,
as Heidegger says. So the way to argue against Rorty would be to discuss
the MOQ and state what it offers us in terms of use/insight. It is then up
to
Matt to question these insights and descriptions in terms of them
reproducing
the dangers/inadequacies of SOM. It seems to me that talking positively
about
an alternative to SOM is very difficult without starting to sound like you
have
moved back into SOM. For me, Heidegger has made the best attempt to do this,
this is why he is almost unreadable because he distances from SOM thinking
and therefore
from almost all the linguistic tools we have available. Pirsig is not as
careful and consistent
as Heidegger, however, some of the devices he uses to explain the
differences between
SOM and MOQ are very powerful and easier to understand than Heidegger.
We should really understand Matt as a fellow traveller that has walked to
the edge of the
country of SOM with us, but is not sure that he wishes to travel to the
country of MOQ.
I think Matt fancies the border country, its a bit lawless but the freedom
is great.
Let's talk about the positive side of MOQ.
What would the world be like if everyone understood and accepted the
limitations of SOM
and were MOQers?
OR:
What would the world be like if everyone understood and accepted the
limitations of SOM
and were pragmatists?
regards
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Buchanan" <DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2003 11:34 PM
Subject: RE: MD Begging the Question, Moral Intuitions, and Answering the
Nazi, Part III
> 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
>
>
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 Nov 02 2003 - 14:40:46 GMT