Matt said to dmb:
...But perhaps that's what bothers you--my massive ego for making somebody
debase themselves by prostrating themselves before the altar of "talk and
explore something _with me_," which apparently shines too much of a light on my
egotistical belief that people would care what I think. ... Which, I guess, is
why I keep wondering why you keep wandering back to me. It must be for sport.
You say it's not for sport, but that just looks like a political move to
me--"hey, I said X (as I wink to the crowd)". I don't know--your written
behavior is gross. Like "icky." I feel like a third-grader reading it, and I
don't like feeling like a third-grader.
dmb says:
Well, I figure there is nothing I can do about your self-esteem if I wanted to.
What bothers me is that this issue (your ego) is forever getting in the way.
You're way too worried about what "the crowd" thinks. Whatever the reason is,
the debate can only ever get to a certain point before it breaks down for
reasons that have nothing to do with the actual topic in dispute.
Also, I don't know how my "wandering back" to your views could still be a
mystery. As I understand it, Rortyism has lead you to dismiss Pirsig's central
terms and his central ideas. Of course I'm going to disagree with that. It's
not a sport. I sincerely think you are mistaken about that. But it's not
enough, apparently, to make the case and cite my sources. I also have to couch
these disagreements in language that is as soft and gentle as kitten? You
refuse to respond unless my tone in sufficiently deferential or respectful,
because my behavior is "icky"? It's too much work to think about the substance
of the argument AND deal with the emotions that are stirred by the WAY I say
things? Dude, I'm disagreeing with you in a very big way. Of course that's
going to entail some discomfort. It's unreasonable to expect that you can avoid
discomfort entirely. That's just a natural reaction for anyone whose views are
being challenged. Would it really make a difference if these objecti
ons were phrased differently? Is there a way to say, "you're wrong" that won't
sting the ego? I don't think such a language has been invented yet.
If I were to try to comply with your demands of gentleness, it would only come
across as insincere condescension. If I were to start making my arguments and
at the same time doing it in a way that would baby your ego, THAT would be
truly insulting. On the other hand, I'm already modifying my tone quite a bit
and if I were write exactly what I think you'd see that I've actually been
quite restrained and even gentlemanly. I'd be more than happy to show you what
a unrestrained attack looks like. Probably be very cathartic for me and if I
thought this whole thing really was just for sport that's what I'd do. 99% of
the work I do in bringing the argument to the table could be blown off if my
aim was just to personally insult you. There is a long, long list of negative
things I could say about your verbal behavior but I don't think it's relevant.
It would be petty and inflammatory at the same, so I don't. By the same token,
I think your complaints about my manners are petty, irrele
vant and seem to serve only the purpose of avoiding or evading the actual
arguments.
You're free to disagree with Hickman, Hildebrand, Haack, the Stanford
Encyclopedia, the article by Fish or the one about McDowell. But you can't just
wave off all that textual evidence as an illegitimate form of anti-Rorty
cruelty. I'm quite sure none of Rorty's critiics were thinking about your ego
when they put their case together. There is nothing unfair about using such
sources. It's not icky behavior to disagree you, not even to disagree
vigorously or frankly. That's a kind of caring too, you know? Gentle nurturing
is an appropriate way to care when dealing with helpless creatures, young
plants and little children but here we are grown ups engaged in a philosophical
debate. In a situation like this it is absolutely essential that we be able to
take criticism seriously without being undone by it.
Rorty, for example, is quoted praising Hildebrand's criticisms on the back of
Hildebrand's book. Here's what Rorty has to say about a book in which he is
accused of eviscerating pragmatism, of gutting the guts out of pragmatism.
(Which is almost exactly what I'm saying about your treatment of the MOQ, about
your way of taking the Quality out of the MOQ.)
"David Hildebrand's attempt to restate Dewey's central message is intelligent,
well informed and well argued, as are his polemics against what he takes to be
Putnam's and my own misunderstanding of Dewey."
One of your other heros, Joseph Margolis, offers high praise for Hildebrand.
"Pragmatism was 'revived' in the 1970s and 1980s and was led at once into
philosophical dead ends that John Dewey had already skillfully dismantled. Now,
David Hildebrand corrects the record: provides an informed, splendidly argued,
indispensable part of the recovery of Dewey's analysis of realism - still
hardly bettered by anyone today."
I mean, there is a real fight among academic philosopher that looks exactly
like our fight. The key positions of the neopragmatists are being pitted
against the key positions of classical pragmatists in countless books and
articles. I fully realize that some of the language used (relativism,
dilettantism, evisceration) have an emotional charge. That's part of the reason
these Rorty critics use them. The charge they carry is part of the truth
they're trying to tell. I mean, it's not that a cold, clear, rational position
is being dressed up in emotionally charged language just for effect. The
position itself is emotionally charged. It's about intellectual values that
real people care about quite a lot. I think it's unrealistic to expect cool,
passionless, table manners in such a situation. So what if I chew with my mouth
open? I think you should be happy that I haven't yet tried to stick a fork in
your eye.
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail has tools for the New 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_1
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
