Greetings Matt, On Oct 17, 2011, at 7:59 PM, Matt Kundert wrote:
> > Hi Marsha, > > Marsha said: > I dismissed what I thought were _negative_ statements without > supporting arguments. I can accept that they were your personal > opinion. If you would like to present the standards by which one is > judged an adequate vs limited scholar and why RMP failed, please > do so. If you would like to present standards by which an argument > is ultimately judged good or bad and why RMP presented a bad > argument, please do so. If you would like to present any other > evidence, examples and explanation to support your claim please do > so. And if you do address your argument to me, please write down to > my level. Though I am often interested in what you might have to say, > I have never enjoyed or felt adequate to unpack your rhetoric. > > I can also see this type of labeling (good and bad) as reification, a > som habit; a som habit which I too often fall into myself. > > Matt: > What I find very curious about your angle of approach to what I said > is that it strikes me as the "som habit" par excellence when it comes > to argumentation. And it can't be the "good" or "bad" labels > themselves, for aren't they just the labels we attach to our evaluative > connection to reality, which Pirsig says we couldn't get rid of if we > tried? (Not the labels, the connection.) The habit, I think, is rather > preconceiving the area in which the labels get deployed as being > static, which I don't do. Kicking that habit would involve seeing the > conversational space that arguments are deployed in as a fluid area > in which it doesn't make any sense to ask about "ultimately judged > good or bad." I was assuming no such grandiose and > impossible-to-approach standard in the background to what I said, so > I find it odd to have it requested. > > I also do not, for reasons articulated in my "Pirsig Institutionalized" in > the Essay Forum, accept the transition between "without supporting > arguments" to "[just] personal opinion." I take it, on the model of > "we _are_ our static patterns," that our personal identity (i.e. > whatever is called into being by "Matt Kundert" or "MarshaV") always > comes along with arguments in its train (on Pirsig's analogy, in fact). > This is what "authority" or "expertise" or "intellectual reputation" are. > They are the necessary social latches to which specifically intellectual > patterns accrue so that we can do more than create long scrolls of > amassed data and argument-strings when we are trying to articulate > ourselves and communicate to each other. > > I did not offer any evidence the first time around of whose example > divested Pirsig's argument of its veracity (i.e. that no one's seen > connections between Aristotle, Spinoza, and James before). As > such, I was relying on my reputation. One can, quite legitimately, ask > for more than just that. But what I do think is a nasty SOM habit is > supposing that a "personal opinion," i.e. anything that does not come > with elaborate argumentative chains with mountains of evidence (I'm > being hyperbolic, clearly) is ignorable. After all: what evidence did > Pirsig supply? None, none at all. You were taking him at his > authoritative word. And that's what I matched against his. That's > why I talked about your rhetoric of responding to me. I have no idea > whether you really were just dismissing me--but that's the stance > your words told me you were taking. You can dismiss me, but not, > it would seem to me, on the grounds you appeared to be. > > So, what you were doing is saying, "Nah, I'll take Pirsig's expertise > over yours Matt." That's a perfectly fair judgment, the kind we make > all the time in life when confronted with different persons saying > different things. Given that I didn't offer any examples, that I didn't > do any research to solidify my point, that's a perfectly acceptable > response. But what isn't, I think, is supposing that I was doing > something different in kind to what Pirsig had done in that passage. > If I had really cared about the point I was making, thought it was > important (which I don't really), I would have done research. But > do we really need to do intensive research for every suspicion and > judgment we make in life? Shouldn't we prioritize and give our time > to important things, rather than marginal, unimportant things? > > But, even though it's not really a point I think it's all that important to > make, the second time around I offered Randall, who sits on my > shelf. If one example is not enough to at least lend a creak of doubt > to Pirsig's grandiose rhetoric of "why has no one ever noticed," then > I'm not even sure what more research would do. I don't have a > programmatic standard by which to judge good from bad scholars--I > do so by direct acquaintance, a dim apprehension, if you will, of > worth based on my experience in reading scholars. I wouldn't ask > for anything else from a scholar working in the field who is _not_ > writing research on the subject, but is instead offering rather like > balancing comments and impressions based on their experience. > And "based on experience" is what accumulates and creates > "authority." > > That's how I see it, at least. Okay. > > Matt > > p.s. I don't know how to write to you, specifically, Marsha, so I > apologize for the displeasure my style causes. But we all deal > with that from each other, don't we? I appreciate your effort. Marsha ___ 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
