Greetings Matt,
On Oct 26, 2011, at 5:50 PM, Matt Kundert wrote:
>
> Hello Marsha,
>
> Sorry about my joke--I'd sent the response post before reading your
> catch of the mistake. (And it hardly needs apologizing for--we all
> make trivial mistakes like that.)
>
>> Hello Matt,
>>
>> On Oct 25, 2011, at 6:57 PM, Matt Kundert wrote:
>>
>>> Hello Margie,
>>>
>>>> Hello Mark,
>>>>
>>>> On Oct 24, 2011, at 7:38 PM, Matt Kundert wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Matt said:
>>>>> I'm wondering what it even means for science to reject, say,
>>>>> biological values.
>>>>>
>>>>> Marsha said:
>>>>> Science might reject the physical responses accompanying jealousy,
>>>>> fear or hate from biasing the interpretation or presentation of data.
>>>>>
>>>>> Matt also said:
>>>>> When did biology reject sex?
>>>>>
>>>>> Marsha also said:
>>>>> Biology includes the study of sex.
>>>>>
>>>>> Matt:
>>>>> The first response construes Pirsig in a useful way, but the second
>>>>> walks into why the formulation is odd: science _studies_ stuff, but to
>>>>> say it _includes_ it without the "study of" bit is to think that biology
>>>>> includes having scientists having a lot of sex with each other ("in the
>>>>> name of science," they keep telling their spouses). The answer to
>>>>> the rhetorical question doesn't rebut the premise in the right way in
>>>>> order to clarify the issue. Science rejects jealousy and fear as
>>>>> appropriate responses in the "study of" bit, but in the same way the
>>>>> answer to the second question could've been "biology includes the
>>>>> study of fear." Biology doesn't reject sex, and it doesn't reject fear,
>>>>> in toto: rather it rejects fear and sex in terms of their relevance to
>>>>> the "study of" stuff. Which is why I find the Pirsig formulation a
>>>>> little lop-sided.
>>>>
>>>> Marsha:
>>>> Since there is no absolute by which to reckon whether RMP's
>>>> formulation is a little lop-sided or your head is a little lop-sided,
>>>> I'd have to wonder what are you trying to grasp? Do you know?
>>>>
>>> Matt:
>>> Why on earth do we need an absolute to be able to make value
>>> judgements? Did I not relativize the judgement properly enough to
>>> my self and its perspective? Oh, I see that I did.
>>>
>>> What on earth are you looking for, Margie?
>>
>> Marsha:
>> Make all the value judgements you deem necessary. That doesn't mean
>> I need to accept or reject them. That was the meaning of my response.
>> Didn't you get that? Maybe you should have tried a more careful reading.
>>
>
> Matt:
> I never said you had to accept them. I figure everyone makes those
> judgements as they read along, and that my job is rather to lay out
> the arguments (or whatever) that I find convincing.
>
> What I find very odd is that this is the second or third time recently
> that you've made your point that you don't need to accept or reject
> my reasoning or whatever by invoking the lack of an "Absolute." I
> have no idea why you do this. Invoking an "Absolute" either as a
> lack or a presence seems to me so much a version of SOM-thinking
> that it surprises me. It seems exactly the _wrong_ way for a
> Pirsigian to make the meaning of such a response. That's why I
> never catch that that's what you're doing.
I think you have misstated that a _couple of times_ recently I invoked, to
you, an "Absolute" And, of course, I did not capitalize the absolute.
> Matt:
> You wondered earlier about what it is I'm trying to grasp, and
> whether I even know, but how about this as an answer: I'm trying to
> grasp the inner workings of my own thought-processes while at the
> same time trying to see how they fit other people's. That's a way of
> describing philosophical conversation. What's mind-boggling to me
> about conversing with you is that sometimes it seems like you're just
> trying to flout being pinned down as thinking X or Y. Like, every time
> someone tries to approach your thinking in order to understand it, in
> fact. It's as if you interpret these communicative approaches as
> attempts to dominate you, but sometimes that's just not what's
> going on.
Since you have not asked a clear and concise question, but seem
satisfied with your vague projections, I find no way to clearly respond.
Thanks for writing.
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
