Matt said:
Did you realize when you wrote that that it puts us largely in agreement? I
wouldn't use the rhetoric of "confusion" here to describe the art of
interpretation at work, but perhaps--if you think you still disagree with me
somewhere on this issue--it's too subtle for me to see. ...The only thing I can
think of is that you used "hypochondria" as your analogy, whereas I used
"therapy" (stolen from Wittgenstein). Is there a difference that makes a
difference there? Is there something else, or are we in accord?
dmb says:
What?
The rhetoric of "confusion" describes the art of "interpretation"? Hypochondria
and therapy are similar analogies?
Isn't the question about whether or not SOM is a real problem or a fake one?
Isn't the question about whether or not our concepts can have a blind spot with
respect to DQ?
What do you and/or Wittgenstein mean by "therapy" such that it's relevant or
similar to my assertion that SOM is a real problem? Wouldn't therapy be some
kind of cure while hypochondria is some kind of illness? And doesn't Pirsig do
exactly what Wittgenstein insist we can't do, which is talk about the
ineffable. Wouldn't his stance preclude or even forbid the MOQ?
I thought you were asking me to reconcile an apparent contradiction in the MOQ.
Was that not the case? Was that not successful?
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
