Greetings Marsha,
> 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:
No, I don't think I did misstate that. I'm counting our exchange
earlier this month in "Taking Words Seriously," which at one point
you said, "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" (Oct. 17). This is the same gesture
I find weird.
That is the only one I can directly evidence, though I feel like we've
crossed this terrain before, which is the explanation for my vague
"second or third." And no, you did not capitalize "Absolute." I did.
> > 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.
Matt:
No, thank you for trying. Part of my vague projecting is that your
philosophical identity is, to me, a vague mist, even after all these
years, and that every time I try and get a clear picture of what you
think, and show that picture to you, you snap at me. So, all there is
to do is mistily describe a mist. You can't capture a mist after all: it
disappears when you try. But, I have to admit that part of the onus
must be on me at failing to develop a picture you won't snap at me
for.
And that's a hell of a lot more than anyone else will admit to you,
even though the frustration of talking to you I think is wider felt
than just by me. And yet, I'm never compensated by better
communicative channels by such "we're all in this together
sentiments." I feel these sentiments sincerely, that communication
is a boat every person _has_ to help steer. But eventually we all
make that personal choice to ditch the boat we're on and seek other
ones.
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
