Matt, Steve, Andre and all interested moqers:
Andre seems to understand and I appreciate the help. Hopefully, this post will
clear up some misunderstandings. Steve has made a series of clear and succinct
remarks that lend themselves to this task.
Steve said:
I agree that the point of saying "the fundamental nature of reality is outside
of language" is to insist that we give up on trying to nail it down with words.
... Matt was actually the first to say that there may be "no difference" which
is when you got all upset with him. Your original denial of "no difference" is
what got this whole thing rolling.
dmb says:
There are two different cases being conflated here. This particular agreement
(that you can't nail it down with words) does not resolve the larger issue. In
fact, this agreed upon point is the centerpiece of Matt's argument against the
usefulness of DQ. You know, because DQ is the contentious half of the DQ/sq
distinction and that's what got this rolling. Matt doesn't see the difference
between Pirsig and Rorty, between the empirical approach and the linguistic
approach. I'm trying to show what the difference is and why it matters. Talking
about radical empiricism and the role of DQ or pure experience in Pirsig's
empiricism is a direct way of talking about their biggest and most important
differences.
Steve said:
My understanding is that your "radical empiricism approach" and Matt's
"philosophy of language approach" are both forms of anti-Platonism.
dmb says:
Yes. I think Pirsig and Rorty are both anti-Platonists. But that only means
they share a common enemy. I've been trying to explain how the anti-Platonism
of Rorty and Fish and friends differs from radical empiricism, despite this
common enemy. I've also been trying to explain how and where Matt is using
Rorty's anti-Platonism against Pirsig's anti-Platonism, how a misunderstanding
of radical empiricism leads to rejecting the rejection. Against Pirsig's
anti-Platonism, Matt raises the specter of Platonism. So I'm trying to get you
to understand radical empiricism to show how and why that criticism can't be
applied to the claims radical empiricism.
Steve continued:
You keep taking Matt's lack of interest in talking about radical empiricism as
an attack on radical empiricism. It's not. And since you think he is attacking
radical empiricism, you think he must be supporting Platonism. He's not. Matt
is just saying that he is doing the anti-Platonist thing in a different way
from you. You seem to be insisting that there is just one way to do
anti-Platonism: radical empiricism.
dmb says:
Every statement about my thoughts is a misunderstanding. I don't think Matt is
attacking RE. I DO think he's dismissing it, glossing over it as unimportant. I
don't think he's supporting Platonism. I DO think he's misapplying his
anti-Platonism to things he doesn't properly understand. I don't think there is
only one way to do anti-Platonism. I DO think there is at least one that way
that you can NOT do the MOQ. Without "Quality", the MOQ is meaningless and
that's why I object to Matt's dismissals and glossings over. That's what he's
leaving out.
Steve said:
In your view, if Matt wants to be an anti-Platonist but doesn't want to do
radical empiricism, then he must not understand radical empiricism. Matt is
willing to grant that he may not understand radical empiricism, but he thinks
that even if he understood it, he still wouldn't necesarily want to use it
since he already has ways of doing anti-Platonism. But you keep insisting that
either he does radical empiricism or he is a Platonist in your book. Then Matt
just shrugs and walks away. He knows that he is not a Platonist, but he also
knows that you are no more interested in understanding his sort of
anti-Platonism as he is in better understanding your radical empiricism.
dmb says:
I guess you're referring to the case I made with respect to the battle between
Plato and the Sophists? It seems to me that you're bypassing and
misunderstanding the point and purpose of that case the case I made with
respect to the SOM assumptions of the post-positivists, of Matt's neopragmatic
heroes. In other words, I'm not concerned about the fact that Matt has other
ways to be an anti-Platonist. I'm not saying you have to be a radical
empiricist to be an anti-Platonist. The battle between Plato and the Sophists
is relevant to a proper understanding of the differences between radical
empiricism and Matt's vocabulary-vocabulary. I'm trying to show how the
linguistic approach is not just different from radical empiricism, it pushes
back against the main thrust of radical empiricism. See, it's not about whether
or not he can have his and I can have mine. It's about the compatibility of
those two approaches. Matt see's no important difference and I'm trying to show
how they are opposed in a very crucial way. Matt thinks they both serve the
same purpose, oppose Plato for the same reasons and either one will get you
there. Not so. He's leaving out the same thing that Plato left out. The
dynamic. If all you have of reality is reality under a description, then all
you have is static reality, the uncontentious half of the DQ/sq distinction.
I'm saying his form of anti-Platonism amounts to anti-Pirsigism. It's the
latter that concerns me. If this were anti-Platonism.org or Rorty.org it would
be more reasonable to make a case that DQ or pure experience is something we
can take or leave. But this is MOQ.org, of course, and so I'm only concerned
with Matt's take on this to the extent that it cuts the heart of the MOQ.
Steve said:
I understand that you are comfortable with the paradox, but can you imagine
that someone else could be less comfortable with paradox and choose not to say
paradoxical things when it can be avoided? Do you think paradoxes are
unavoidable? Perhaps they are sometimes. But what if someone has a way of doing
the anti-Platonism without saying things that contradict themselves? What if
that person is not as comfortable with paradox as you are? Wouldn't it make
sense for that person to choose a different way of doing anti-Platonism if he
can do so without paradox?
dmb says:
The DQ/sq distinction and the MOQ itself is a paradox. The question is not
whether or not Matt can do his anti-Platonism in a way that avoids paradoxes.
The question is whether or not Matt can avoid the MOQ's paradoxical nature by
glossing over the mysticism, by leaving out the Quality. In other words, if we
want to discuss the MOQ, then no, absolutely not. We can't avoid paradox.
Steve said:
... you have missed the actual question that was asked. You haven't addressed
"the preference not to speak in certain terms." You keep conflating this
preference with an attack on radical empiricism. Matt is not attacking radical
empiricism. There is just your attack on Matt's not doing radical empiricism.
dmb says:
I've been avoiding that one to some extent but not entirely. You might remember
that I recently objected to the notion that this is a matter of personal
preference and you might remember a week or two ago I objected (and you agreed)
to the kind of talk that can be taken to mean that truth hinges on our whims.
I've said relatively little about this aspect of Matt's case because I'm trying
to keep things from getting over-heated.
First, let me object on the grounds that this assertion begs the question. In
terms of that recent pithy slogan, the dispute pits the empirical against the
linguistic. By saying that it is really just a matter of preferring to speak in
certain terms, you're assuming the very thing in dispute. You're just asserting
the linguistic against the empirical as if the dispute had already been settled
and empiricism lost.
But the other objection is more viscerally felt. I have nothing but contempt
for that kind of talk. MY vocabularies. MY interests. MY purposes. MY projects.
MY preferred ways of talking. That doesn't sound like pragmatism at all. That
just sounds like solipsistic narcissism. Don't get me wrong, I think there is a
valid pragmatic assertion buried down in there somewhere but it's being misused
terribly, I think, in the course of these conversations. Not only is it used to
beg the question, it's also used to change the subject and as an evasion tactic
in general. I accuse Matt of confusion and error and he says we should drop the
vocabulary of confusion and error. That's way too convenient to be believed.
When this idea of purposes and interests and vocabularies is invoked, I think
to myself, "but we're talking about Pirsig's central terms. That's the
vocabulary of concern. But we're discussing the MOQ at MOQ.org. That's the
purpose. That's the project. That's the interest we have in common and that
common interest constitutes the topic of the conversation." And so that kind of
talk only seems to serve one purpose; evasion.
Steve said:
Are you intersted in how anti-Platonism can be done without radical empiricism?
If so, Matt would have a lot to teach you. If not, then why get on Matt's case?
dmb says:
Well, no. I'm not interested in anti-Platonism per se. But since you mentioned
it, let me remind you that I've been going out on my own to investigate the
names and slogans Matt uses to make his case and I've been bringing them back
into the discussion as a way to talk to Matt in his own terms. But again, this
is not Rorty.org. I only do this because Matt's Rortyism pushes back against
the main thrust of Pirsigism and I want to show him how and ways that don't
make him do the work. I'm bringing both sides to the table as best I can
because, as Matt admits, he is not able to articulate these things and he's
busy. This work overlaps with the things I need to do for school anyway, so I
don't mind. But give me a little credit, will you? I've been quoting and
discussing Matt's intellectual heroes as part of my case, but neither of you
are responding to it and are instead asking why I'm on Matt's case. But that
stuff is part of the answer that question. Like I keep saying, I'm on Matt's
case because he's dismissing the usefulness of DQ at MOQ.org. I think this is a
compelling and obvious reason to take issue with Matt and in fact I'm shocked
that this even needs to be explained. How could you possibly be mystified by
this stance and on what basis could you object?
That's the question you haven't answered, you know? Can a reasonable person
maintain that the MOQ is just fine without "Quality"?
Steve said:
I'm not rejecting all "fundamental nature" talk. I'm just choosing not to do it
because of fear that it could be taken in the wrong way as I tried to explain.
I know that it is meant to be anti-Platonism and I'm fine with you saying "the
fundamental nature of reality is outside of language," because I know you mean
it as anti-Platonism. It just not a phrase that I would use in certain
circumstances. I might instead choose to say other things to do
anti-Platonism--things that may avoid the paradox that you say you are
comfortable with--or choose to say nothing at all.
dmb says:
Again, these circumstances are the certain circumstances that concern us. This
concern to avoid "fundamental nature" talk makes sense in some other context,
in some other conversation. To use that concern to dictate the terms of our
debate only looks like evasion. In this case, the "fundamental nature" talk is
only the subject matter. It's only the topic and it's only the very thing in
dispute. Oh, yes, by all means let's not talk about that. It might be seen as
Platonism! You see what I mean? It's not really an argument. You admit
agreement but then want to shut down the very thing we're talking about for
reasons having to do with personal comfort levels and for reasons that might
obtain in some other time and place. If that's anything more than a bogus
evasion, then there is something big missing from the argument because I just
don't see it.
Steve said:
Consider also that acording to Pirsig, James's himself saw his radical
empiricism as independent of his pragmatism, so if James's pragmatism is
anti-Platonist, then anti-Platonism can be done without radical empiricism.
dmb says:
If I was saying there is only one way to be anti-Platonic you'd have a good
point. But I didn't say that and I don't think it's true either. Also, I don't
care about other ways to be anti-Platonic. I'm not taking a position one way or
the other because that question is completely irrelevant to my concerns. The
only reason it came up is because Matt thinks anti-Platonism is main the thing.
That's how he comes to the conclusion that "Quality" is something one can take
or leave. You and he are saying one can be anti-Platonic without radical
empiricism. I know that. It's just that I don't care and it's not relevant to
whether or not you can have Pirsig without radical empiricism. It's about
radical empiricism because Pirsig equates his central term with the central
term in radical empiricism, because Pirsig identifies his own DQ/sq distinction
with the distinctions James made. To say he identifies them is to say they are
identical.
Again, this is about taking the Quality out of the MOQ. How could anyone object
to that?
Why do I get so much grief for defending the positions explicitly stated in the
books we're here to discuss? Matt is a Rorty fan who dismisses Pirsig central
idea. How do you figure he is the offended party? Reminds of the situation with
theism. Somehow, defending the MOQ's stance on that makes me the bad guy too. I
think that's backwards. In fact, that reminds me of a good analogy. It seems
reasonable to take an atheistic or even anti-theistic stance here because that
reflects the content of the MOQ. But suppose I went down to the local church
next sunday and took an anti-theistic stance there? What would happen if I did
that? There'd be some disagreements. Maybe even heated arguments. That's what
any sane person would expect, right? So what if I not only went to church to
express my anti-theism but what if I was also offended by the disagreements
that followed and berated them for daring to argue back. Wouldn't you think I
was being unreasonable?
That's how I see it. Given the context, I have every right to mount a defense
of Pirsig and Matt has no right to be offended by it.
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft’s powerful SPAM protection.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/210850552/direct/01/
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/md/archives.html
