Hello Matt, Matt said: I refuse to just assume, anymore, that I know what people are talking about. And I want to refrain, as much as I can, such external diagnostics of a position, .....(snip)....The most I get is the feeling that because I don't use the same vocabulary to do philosophy as Pirsig or James or Dewey or whoever, I'm thereby getting them wrong. But that just seems to me a bad understanding of how philosophy is in fact done. And then I get blamed for not knowing how philosophy is done. (More or less.)
Ron: And I think that speaks to the sort of style and literary backround you posess as well as your approach to Philosophy, which I find unique in the way of it having a living element of inquiry to tease out a Philosophic topic of conversation. Often academically it's not the usual course but thats not to say "thats not how philosophy is done" it just to say that it's an unusual style of Philosophic conversation that doesent necessarily defend a particular point of view. Which is often the case in dialectical fashion here. As far as DQ, you captured my conception of it quite adequatly, whether or not you agree with it, or, it coincides with Pirsigs formulations seems almost secondary to that. I feel it links enough of Pirsigs ideas to qualify as within his line of thinking for my own acceptance and , hopefully, it seemed to breed a new direction of discussion which you seemed interested in. I think this aspect held the most promise. Ron said: The problem that you and Dave share is well beyond anything I could even suggest. Matt, you often take a rather complex read to uncover the subleties of your meaning whereas Dave is more direct. If anything I could add, this would be the primary distiction in your styles of discussion. Matt: I'm not sure I catch the difference. If you're saying I write densely and precisely--such that I want to articulate to my reader that there is one thing I mean here and not a myriad of other possibilities--then yes, that's what I'm hoping I do. It's not that I hope it takes people forever to figure out what the hell I'm saying, but I do hope that people paying attention get paid for the attention they've given. Ron: Ah, this was what I was meaning, that one must really pay attention to what you are actually saying rather than jumping to the conclusion that might be imagined you are driving at which often happens in conversation. One must dedicate the time to thoughtfully consider your exact meaning and often it is worth investing in. Again it seems to be a matter of style which speaks about the intent and aim of how one "does" philosophy. Sometimes styles conflict and one another are confused as to what the other is getting at with the conversation. .... 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
