From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Wed Mar 17 2004 - 19:06:40 GMT
Hi Matt
My point is that to take the ironist position, which is anti-closure,
you are making a claim about the irrepressible DQ surrounding whatever
SQ you make/find. The point is that our experience always has this
DQ/SQ mix and that we cannot finally convert it all to SQ as perhaps
Hegel tried to do (on one reading of him). Or: our experience is always
on the move, is always beyond final/full conceptual grasp. Rorty seems to
be committed to this practically, by his re-readings for example, but I
suggest
it would be useful to go further and state our acceptance of such an SQ/DQ
conception of experience. If you read Heidegger like this you will find it
quite interesting. It is what he means by the forgetfulness of Being, take
Being for
DQ.
regards
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: "MATTHEW PAUL KUNDERT" <mpkundert@students.wisc.edu>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 12:44 PM
Subject: Re: MD What is really anthropocentric?
> David,
>
> David said:
> I think it is a distinction of great importance. Highly compatible with
what Wittgenstein says about where the mystical begins. The distinction is
not between finding and making, please try to read more carefully, it is
between the found/made conceots and the experiences we have that we cannot
grasp conceptually, that go beyond our knowledge, this is what DQ is all
about. My distinction poits to that which is truly open and un-closeable.
You are the Platonist! If everything is anthropocentric to you the concept
has no meaning -please explain. If the human is not open then what is the
difference between your solipsism and idealism?
>
> Matt:
> I'm not sure I understand what you mean. However, I never said that
everything is anthropocentric. Everything is anthropocentric in the same
sense that everything is made. When you eschew the made/found distinction,
you also eschew any way to really rate from worse to better "less
anthropocentricity" to "more anthropocentricity." We might be able say that
when we talk about ethics we are being more anthropocentric then when we are
talking about rocks, but that's only because ethics doesn't obviously talk
about something obviously not one of us. And pragmatists don't further have
any idea how we would rate one way of talking over the other, which is the
only real reason why I can imagine anyone wanting to rate
anthropocentricity. Otherwise, you are simply talking about two different
kinds of things.
>
> Honestly David, I was hoping you'd go for the ironist response rather then
getting all serious and beginning the Platonist epithet exchange.
>
> But to help the exchange along: No, you're the Platonist.
>
> 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 : Wed Mar 17 2004 - 19:34:14 GMT