Matt said to dmb:
I also take it that one could only gloss Rorty as needing to "nod to the
reality of objective things" if one has previously feretted out evidence that
Rorty is using an SOM framework and not, on the contrary, rejecting it ... .
dmb says:
Well, I have been presenting that "evidence". Recently with the Fish article,
McDowell a week or so ago and I looked and found I could uncover the same SOM
thing going on with Davidson too. You've seen Putnam and Hildebrand make the
charge too.
But, like a religious person, you just find some excuse to dismiss the message.
Or the messenger.
Matt said:
...I haven't been able to really read and concentrate on Dave's writings in the
requisite, demanded fashion in some time, because his writings look to me like
somebody getting off on the wrong foot and falling down a long mountain.
dmb says:
Right. How much time have you spent explaining how you don't have time to
explain anything? And may I remind you what it is you don't have time to
explain? Your views. The reasons for dismissing Pirsig's central term. That's
what you can't be bothered to do here at MOQ.org.
And yet it's me who's off on the wrong foot?
Outrageous.
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/210850553/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
