Matt, Without a question and with the introduction of 'trashing', 'denigrating' and 'revenge-attitude', you have terminated this language-game.
Bye, Marsha On Oct 27, 2011, at 7:48 PM, Matt Kundert wrote: >>>> >>>> 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.) >>>>> >> snip... >>>> >>>> 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. >> >> Marsha: >> I don't see Ultimate and "Absolute" as the same, and I would never >> capitalize 'absolute.' I probably should totally drop the word 'absolute,' >> but habits are sometimes hard to break. I understand from your >> point-of-view RMP has presented a bad argument and may seem a >> less then adequate scholar. > > Matt: > I'd hate to be misunderstood, but I don't think Pirsig's a "less than > adequate scholar." He's "adequate" at least--but he's not a scholar, > principally because he never wanted to be. I doubt if one asked him > he'd say that he is. He's a philosopher, he'd say. Which is great. I > read scholars for their scholarship, and philosophers for their > philosophy. But if either side tries to do what the other does, why > shouldn't we judge them according to what it is they're trying to do? > > And I accept that _as a scholar_ you give Pirsig a higher rating than > I would. But I don't see why your mode of expressing this fact > includes making it sound like I'm trashing Pirsig. That's annoying at > least. > >> >>>>> 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. >> >> Marsha: >> Much of my understanding comes from practices that you dismiss: >> mediation, mindfulness and three brief encounters of the unpatterned >> kind. > > Matt: > I didn't know I "dismissed" those things. I'm not sure what you > precisely mean by them, but I'm also not sure when and how I did > the thing that makes you say that (even implicitly). > > Marsha: >> If you want an explanation, I might say philosophically I'm a radical >> skeptic and a negative empiricist, I mean just that: not this, not that. >> Reality >> to me is Quality(Dynamic/static). That seems very straight forward. > > Matt: > Okay, for you. I don't find the labels straightforward, but I find > myself to be straightforward sometimes when other people don't, so > I understand the feeling. > > Marsha: >> I don't snap with anger, more with a strange sense of humor. > > Matt: > Fair enough. > >>> Matt: >>> 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. >> >> Marsha: >> I appreciate that you try, and your being honest. My expression >> might be different but it is true to my experience. > > Matt: > Fair enough. Mine, too. > > Sometimes, I guess...what if I put it to you this way: sometimes it > feels like when you're trying to clear out a space for your experience, > it feels like you're denigrating my experience. And I know that > comes from your sense that people often try denigrating your > experience (I get this sense from watching you over the years, > particularly with what I'd call your feminism in a still masculinist > philosophical culture). But I can't figure why you'd stand for > denigrating mine, because I can't believe you'd go in for a > revenge-attitude. And I don't want to denigrate your experience, but > I've failed to figure out how to communicate my experience to you > without setting off those trip-wires. I only want to toy with concepts. > Is there a way of doing the latter without mucking with the former > (denigrating one's experience)? > >>> Matt: >>> And yet, I'm never compensated by better >>> communicative channels by such "we're all in this together >>> sentiments." >> >> Marsha: >> I think maybe that mediation/mindfulness issue puts us in very >> different positions. > > Matt: > Maybe. I really couldn't say. I have no responsible sense. > >>> Matt: >>> 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. >> >> Marsha: >> Okay... > > Matt: > Alright... > ___ 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
