Matt said to dmb: I'm really sorry I'm not addressing your points, Dave. ...I don't understand what you think our differences are. You seem very sure you're pegging a difference and the only way I can construe a difference is if I do the little annoying Platonic dance. Now, as I see it, the proper response is, "No, that's not what I'm saying, so we're more in agreement here." But, aside from the burgling anger you've never been good at controlling, you seem to see an important difference. When you enunciate it, though, _I_ get confused, because it's all stuff I can more or less agree with. So I fasten on things like the metaphor of illness. And I say things like, "I suggest moving away from this metaphor," not "you are totally fucked if you use this metaphor" as it seems like from your responses to it...
dmb says: I was only annoyed and that's the word I used. But now you've construed it as uncontrolled "burgling anger". C'mon, who's being hyperbolic here? And yes, I think there are some crucial areas of disagreement. I think its important and, apparently, you don't even understand what it is. That's pretty frustrating all by itself. But its especially annoying when my attempted explanations are simply deleted or otherwise dismissed. I mean, with a tactic like that its no wonder you don't see it. Its like you don't even want to try. Matt said: ...I understand you're trying to suss out whatever difference there is between us, so you have to make hay out of something, but I don't think we communicate very well to each other about our problems. You see me as avoiding your points, but most of your points are things I agree with, except that they are aimed at me--it makes just as little sense to me to see you using your weapons against me as it makes sense to you to see me using mine against you. dmb says: Okay, but I do offer explanations as to why I think your charges are unfounded, most recently in the case of the direct/indirect distinction. Last time it was about the illness "metaphor". Like I said last time, I hoped you would respond to my actual answer, which was deleted. Matt said: No, I didn't fasten on "annoying" as a way of dodging what you said. I fastened on to it because it was the only thing left to talk about. Let me say more explicitly then my silence on your explanations which I cut: like with Pirsig and James and Dewey, I agree with large swaths of Heidegger. What I consider a less than expedient philosophical strategy is to enunciate one's philosophy with illness/health metaphors, as people like Pirsig and Heidegger are wont to do. What more is there left to say? You deny that what you are saying _is_ Platonic, so I back off, shrug my shoulders and say, "Well, I still think there's better metaphors to use." You say it isn't a metaphor, but, from my perspective, that's like saying Pirsig was wrong to say it's all analogy. I don't think I'm being dodgey--that's just the sense of metaphor I'm using, the same one Pirsig and you use. dmb says: Well, here you've only supplied something like a description of the dodge. You given your "reasons" for ignoring the point and focusing instead on something irrelevant and trivial. I mean, if you delete my explanation, shrug your shoulders and simply repeat what you said in the first place then I hardly think its fair to say that you've responded at all. And you still haven't. And that's exactly what's still left to say. Somehow you manage to do it even while you apologize for doing it. Matt said: ...But I will agree that we have difficulty in having conversations without it devolving into accusations of something or other. I'm sorry you feel I'm treating you disingenuously. I'm really not trying to, I'm only trying to address the points I see as relevant (a relevancy you've made very clear you disagree with) based on the idea that we largely agree on a lot (which, given things you're saying, I'm stipulating we do--I have difficulty convincing you of that, but then again, you just said it a post or two ago, so maybe you've seen it to, but then all the fighting continues and the ruckus and hey-nonny-nonny and....I get tired because I lose track of what we're fighting about). dmb says: Sentences like that are probably one of the things that make conversation difficult. And I think it would be easier for you to keep track of the disagreements if you simply stopped deleting them and ignoring them. I understand that you're "only trying to address the points" you see as relevant. That's fine. Everybody does that. But my repeated complaint here is that you refuse to address the point I see as relevant. That violates the basic rules of conversation and common courtesy, don't you think? You could, for example, try to explain why you think its not relevant. That's what I've been doing when I find your points irrelevant. Now, to some actual substance... dmb asked Matt: Here's a question for you. As I understand it, Rorty dismisses certain parts of Dewey. You said some things here about that. Do you think it would be fair to say that he's selecting out those points that would take him beyond the first phase, the anti-Platonism. Isn't that where he would suspect Dewey of slipping back into "metaphysics" in the Platonic sense? I mean, would it be fair to say Rorty's treatment of Dewey fits with the debate as I've sketched it? And that's why he's forever talking about what we should give up and what we should no longer ask. He puts most of the emphasis on the negative side, on hunting down the ghost in every corner and crushing it? And any attempts to go beyond this extermination are nothing more than the trickery of that same naughty ghost? Other than my flippant tone, isn't that about right? Matt replied: First, I think "dismisses" is the wrong word. Second, and to your actual question, no, I don't think what you said is about right, though it is a strong view held by many, particularly those who see themselves as resurrecting a nascent field called "metaphysics." ..To expand briefly: 1) I say "see themselves" because I don't think there is a "nascent field" that goes by the name of metaphysics. The reason I don't is because I agree with Pirsig's general definition of "metaphysics," and agreeing with that means "metaphysics" isn't something you could possibly not do--it is basically the general activity of reflection, and specifically reflecting on, and digging around for, the root assumptions of our culture. I don't think that is anything that could be stopped, nor do I think it has ever really stopped, exactly. ..So 2) I object when philosophers, mainly those with this kind of self-image (but not always), accuse Rorty of neglecting what we are calling "metaphysics" (and R orty calls "philosophy"). You want to fit Rorty in a narrative in which he's only an anti-Platonist with no positive suggestions. It doesn't work, because as you've come to see by reading Heidegger in conjunction with Pirsig, poets are the key to change. Poets who spin new metaphors, which are otherwise these root assumptions. This is entirely what Rorty stole from Heidegger and Dewey, too. And Rorty has made positive suggestions, then, too, when we regard "positive suggestions" as changes in metaphors, shifts in assumptions. dmb says: All I can make of this is that your answer is "no". But I don't see how or why. How is your refusal to acknowledge the "nascent field" of Rorty's critics relevant to my question? I mean, it would be encouraging to learn there are professionals who criticize Rorty on the same ground that I do, which is what you seem to be letting out of the bag here. By answering the question "no", you seem to think all these professionals are just wrong about Rorty. Maybe, but maybe not. But my question isn't about the definition of "metaphysics". We're agreed on that, I think. Its not something we can avoid. Like opinions, everybody has one and the only question is, "how good is it?". You say you disagree with Rorty's critics who have that "self imagine". I certainly don't understand your reasoning here. I mean, how does their self-description bear on whether they're criticism is valid or not? How is that a reason for rejecting what they say? I've seen plenty of criticism from people who cal l themselves pragmatists and who criticize Rorty for his dismissal of radical empiricism, which they consider to be central to classical pragmatism. And isn't it true that Rorty looked at this stuff and dismissed it saying we should be doing empiricism or any kind of epistemology? Okay, I'll grant you the "strong poet" thing. That's not entirely negative. But I'd asked if he didn't "emphasize the negative", not if ever said anything that could possibly be construed as positive. I'm asking you to consider the possibility that Rorty has taught you to be excessively anti-Platonic. When I say you can find Platonism anywhere, that is not a compliment, my friend. I'm asking you to consider the notion that your anti-Platonism is excessive, dogmatic and indiscriminately used. (As in the case of the illness metaphor and the direct/indirect distinction.) Its like your favorite judo move. You love it so much that it doesn't matter if you're being mugged or if somebody is coming in close for a hug. Either way, they're going to hit the matt. I think you're cheating yourself by dismissing so much as Platonism. And its been a conversation stopper way too many times, which cheats people like me out of a quality conversation. Oh, and by the way, metaphors and analogies are two different things. So I'm not sure what you and/or Rorty mean by the term. You're not denying the existence of literal expressions, are you? Aren't the objections to certain metaphors based on the way they have been used to reference metaphysical ideals? And doesn't make all the difference in the world if those images are being used to reference concrete realites? I mean, the common cold is an "illness" and there is nothing Platonic about saying so, right? If Rorty adopts the corrective function of Art from Dewey and Heidegger, then it would also be very close to Pirsig's conception of the code of art. (As you'll see in my essay.) And if I'm using "illness" to describe the corrective function of the "strong poet", whose new metaphors could be seen as the cure for the trouble with the old ones, then what basis do you have to object? If I'm not using the "metaphor" to make any Platonic or "metaphysical" claims, then your object ions to the term make no sense. Its like telling me what words I can and cannot use, regardless of what I'm actually saying. That's why its so annoying to have my points deleted and that's what gives me the impression that my points are simply being evaded. And finally, please try to remember that relevance itself is something we can and should debate. To simply declare something irrelevant is pretty much the same thing as dismissing it. If the other guy thinks otherwise, that it is relevant, and tells you so then such dismissal becomes a very ungenerous and willful ignorance. On top of being intellectually weak, that's just rude. Don't you think? _________________________________________________________________ Keep your kids safer online with Windows Live Family Safety. http://www.windowslive.com/family_safety/overview.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Refresh_family_safety_052008 Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
