Ron, Ian, Dave, Ron said: Part of the reflection in the heat of any discussion should focus on the intent of why we participate.
Matt: I think about this a lot. In the last few years, I've begun to reflect more and more often on the nature of amateur philosophy, and it seems that the question of "why do I do it?" is central to its composure. More so for amateur philosophy than professional. Ian said: I guess I'm always sensitive to "we", "they", "you" messages directed generally, but received as an individual. Matt: Ya' know, I've been so used to the second-person style of forcing philosophical issues to become first-personal in the reader, that it became obfuscated to me the huge rhetorical disadvantages of it. I have a professor who tells me to stop that shit. I know now where it comes from: from the "lecturing" mode, of philosophers lecturing to their students, who as a mass wouldn't make the mistake of a personal communique. And most of your most famous philosophy books are based on lectures. Hence, the rhetoric slips in sometimes unconsciously. But lately I've been trying to make a much more conscious effort to eliminate that rhetorical habit when it could be ambiguously taken for a personal reference. So much of my old stuff would've been much less confrontational sounding if I had done this earlier. Because my "you's" are/were almost always the abstract second-person. And I should apologize, Ian, for being as confrontational to you at the end of that last post. You've shown a real generous spirit in not bridling, and I thank you for it. Matt said: For example, why didn't Dave say all of those neutral things about compassion and empathy in his expansion of the MoQ to Steve, and not me? One answer might be because of how he perceives Steve as an interlocutor, and on the other hand how he perceives me. Dave said: Please feel free to reply even if my posts are specifically addressed to you. If I directed my comments about compassion and empathy at Steve rather than you, it's only because Steve has said many objectionable things about compassion and empathy, whereas you haven't said much at all. Matt: That's a mistake there: I meant it the other way around, and I realize now that my double-negative way of stating it made it confusing, mainly because it is entirely ungrammatical. (I got confused when I reread it before your comment on it.) I was thinking about that paragraph you commented to me about Pirsig not talking about love (after I said something about it). Because my comments weren't aimed at exactly entering the conversation, for as you say I haven't heretofore really had the will to do so. As I read the situation, your remarks weren't really aimed at me, because I'm not part of the conversation, but at Steve, who's your primary interlocutor. So why not those remarks at Steve (was supposed to be the rhetorical question)? But none of this is really here or there. As you say, my remarks aren't helpful about the actual debate, and they weren't intended to be. I'm purposefully remaining aloof because I don't have time for anything more than off-the-cuff. You can perceive Steve as "calling for my help" if you want, but I think that's a gross underestimation of Steve's actual prowess and of his position's actual solidity. However, there's also far too much mud sticking to everyone, too much bad history dragging the whole conversation down, for--as I see it--anyone to do anything worthwhile in repairing an actual conversation, except for starting over (which was my abstract suggestion). Steve found his own way to positions that happen to be similar to mine. That's how I view it, and in large part because I've been learning from Steve how to better state things I would want to state. If Steve "calls out to me," it seems to be only in those cases where he thinks I might know better than he little historical bits about the history of philosophical conversation, things that would be handy for all to know about to talk about the thing he wants to talk about (like the Kantian request recently). And Steve is quickly surmounting me in knowledge of the state of philosophical conversation. Why don't I comment on Steve's behavior? You know why, Dave. I'm not sure why you're making me say it, other than perhaps what rhetorical value it gives your position, but I have little to say about Steve's behavior because I was once the one in his shoes. It is stunning how near-perfectly parallel your mode of argumentation to Steve is to what it was to me, and how Steve's responses were once mine. It is because of this that I said, "one of the things I was slammed for was my method, my interpretive principles. The reason to reiterate these, whatever they are, isn't to bash each other again with one more weapon, but to try to start the conversation over. That's what I've realized in my old age." If you didn't know, Dave, that you existed in my denuded historical remarks about my tenure here, then you have a shorter memory than I gave you credit for. And I eliminated you from it because my aim is exactly _not_ to drag up the muddy history of personal relationships of the MD. My aim was to suggest that everyone has the capacity to start over if they want to, and that everyone should be more willing more often to do so. Conversations can go down the wrong rabbit-holes all the time, and very quickly, and the only way to re-rail them is to pretend like the last few spins didn't happen, climb back up, and find a different route. So, I say "the reason to reiterate [interpretive principles], whatever they are, isn't to bash each other again with one more weapon, but to try to start the conversation over." And what do you say? "As I see it, Steve's position can be defeated by simply quoting the dictionary." That's not starting over; that's wielding an interpretive principle like a weapon. However, now that it's out there, why isn't it fair to say: "Okay, but I don't think it is always apropos to quote the dictionary. And, further, in this particular context, I find the dictionary to be distinctively irrelevant because it codifies common sense, and if we _first_ want to get a handle on whether Pirsig is saying something revolutionary or not, we have to start first with him before seeing whether it crosses common sense." As a general point about doing philosophy, I rarely think it's a good idea to start with a dictionary. However, some of my favorites do so. So I would never say it's _always_ irrelevant, or out of bounds, or anything. But we have to start with our general interpretive modes of behavior and work back to the particular context and decide whether we can repair a neutral ground on which to proceed with a conversation. Maybe you would be able to come up with a good reason for us starting with the dictionary. But why take it as the only obvious, rational place to begin, when philosophy has _never_ dictated to anyone where the right place to start is? (And think about the parallel between the dictionary and the philosophological cart.) Why not suggest we start there to see where it goes, rather than demanding it? I haven't been active, and will continue to remain inactive, because I don't have time think hard about how best to state the things I think instinctively. Steve isn't my proxy, nor am I his, but a lot of positions Steve takes are one's I would affirm, and after reading and talking to Steve for a few years, I've come to think that things Steve says I should take seriously. He has always, it seems to me, been cogent. You and I, apparently, disagree on Steve's cogency. But then, I'm not sure I ever convinced you that _I_ was cogent. If you _do_ think so nowadays, and weren't just puffing smoke telling me to take Steve's car keys (why, after all, would you tell another drunk person to take the drunk's keys, unless you were just making a sick joke), then consider the fact it could hardly have been anything I said directly to you, but rather, in fact, me staying away from you and letting the sheer force of time fade your memory of all the bad feelings. Matt 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
