dmb and dmber, well... at least this demonstrates it's not just me. He treats everyone this way.
On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 9:43 AM, david buchanan <[email protected]>wrote: > > DMB said to Matt: > > 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. > > > > Matt replied: > > First question--how much time I've spent explaining my lack of time: way > too much, let me tell you, but it's easy time, not the more arduous time it > takes to say something new and substantive. (I have high standards, I > guess.) ... Second rhetorical question--what I don't have time for: "[my] > views" That's tough, because I haven't been asked for an honest explanation > of my views. Certainly not an easy one. Because, honestly, I don't have a > long, expository articulation of my views, aside from stuff on my > bloggy-dingy. Well-defined, catechisms of views is largely not what amateur > philosophy is about, hence the shift from ZMM to Lila. ... How can we know > so much about me if I'm so mysterious and will never explain myself? Seems > weird. ... Am I being elusive? Allusive? Why would somebody care if I was? > Is my opinion important somehow? > > > > > dmb says: > > Yes, you are both elusive and allusive but what bothers me most is that you > are evasive. > > The fact is, radical empiricism is already in the books we're here to > discuss and understanding the position does not require any reading or > thinking beyond ZAMM and Lila. Further, I have been spoon feeding both sides > of the argument so that the only thing you have to do is read the posts > you're responding to anyway. The only difference would be that you're > responses would be directed at the dealing with the issues rather than > evading them. > Nope. That's just not plausible. > Of course, there is a real reason why you always respond with evasions > instead of substantial answers. There is a big black hole that exists where > your answers should be. What's missing is support for your own position, > support for your own expressed views. Would it really kill you to attempt a > sincere and intellectually responsible consideration of the case I've > presented? Wouldn't it be easier than all this tap dancing? Does the > prospect of learning something about the difference between Rorty and Pirsig > somehow threaten something you NEED to believe? Your resistance these ideas > seems quite unfounded, irrational and even fanatical. > > You won't believe it anyway and least of all from me. But I'm telling you > that I can see what you're doing. I can see right where you go wrong. I'm > trying to show you how and why Rorty's critique of empiricism is irrelevant > to the MOQ. I would have thought that you'd be happy to discuss your own > position, to defend your own views. That seems to be your favorite topic and > you're always happy to direct MOQers to your blog, which is nothing but. > > I guess the real reason is that you think a substantial conversation with > me about this topic would be embarrassing for you. It might turn out that I > actually have a good point here and that notion is just a nightmare for you. > That's why you get angry instead of getting serious. That's why you demand > that I treat with with kid gloves and why you disapprove of the rhetoric of > confusion and error. > > But these evasions do not save your pride at all. All I ever wanted was a > straight answer but these constant evasions only make you look > intellectually irresponsible and intellectually dishonest. Seems you dislike > me for making you do that, even though that's always the last thing I > actually want you to do. > > I think straight answers are just a matter of common courtesy in any > situation. But more so in a situation like this. Here, it's like the lowest > minimum standard. But the most I can get out of you is an allusion to an > irrelevant answer. Your recent reference to the third dogma of empiricism, > for example. There you did not bother to explain what the third dogma is or > why Davidson opposes it and sure enough, as has been the case every time > I've looked into your allusions, it turns out this critique was directed > against traditional empiricism and is simply not relevant to the claims of > radical empiricism. > > Every single time, Matt. You're making the same basic mistake over and > over. I can see how you're doing it. I can see how it's very easy to do. > Pros do it. But apparently, in your mind, being corrected is the second > worst thing that could ever happen. And the worst thing is being corrected > here by me about Rorty. > > That's just never gonna happen is it? At this point, even if you did > suddenly see it, you'd never give me the satisfaction of admitting that. At > this point, you'd die first, huh? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > The New Busy is not the old busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox. > > http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID27925::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:032010_3 > 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 > 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
