Matt said: I doubt the philosopher who said that we should make sure to put the horse of philosophy ahead of the cart would be insulted by a "kibitzer" (his word for what he did in Lila's Child) who has their own sense of which philosophical claims are better or worse, and who wanted to see the chess moves play out before judging which are better or worse. Was Pirsig being presumptuous and offensive to James when he suggested in Lila that James's pragmatism was a philosophy that a Nazi could use (and that his was an improvement because it couldn't)? I don't find you presumptuous and offensive when you deride Rorty. I don't think you understand him at all, but I do consider you to be exercising your autonomous rights as an individualist philosopher to choose who and what you take seriously and which claims you want to defend and attack.
DMB said: No, Pirsig was addressing scholarly criticism that James's pragmatism has faced for a long time and it's not like I haven't cited books, papers and encyclopedia to criticize Rortyism, which you bring to this table by the way. You've only cited Marsha and your solution to her imaginary conflict, you said, is to dismiss or ignore one of the two passages. This move seems to presume that Pirsig needs help being coherent and instead give credence to Marsha's transparent attempt to piss on James. How can you fail to see her vindictive motives in this, Mr. Sensitivity? Do you think that represents and wise and responsible choice about who and what to take seriously? I don't. Matt: I couldn't choose between three responses, so here's all three: 1) "Cited Marsha?" 2) "You have a very strange conception of when and how it is okay to disagree with a person. (And no, Pirsig was making a criticism of James.)" 3) "Well, it was between taking you or Marsha seriously, so..." Matt said: You're just looking to be insulted by me. I'm really only trying to do it some of the times. The other times, like this one, you're actually violating Pirsigian strictures by being insulted, suggesting that I cannot go my own way as a philosopher, and that I must kowtow like a professional philosophologist, which we all know is an absurd stereotype of something no one wants to be. DMB said: Huh? I just meant that your denials insult my intelligence. It's not about your freedom. It's just about denying your own claims and statements. It's not about philosophology. It's just about you pretending that you weren't playing along with Marsha's imaginary contradiction. "Seriously" was your word for how it ought to be taken. Matt: Uh-hunh, I know what you meant, but sometimes I don't think you really grasp the wider implications of your mode of conversation. Matt said: Of course I was playing along. That's how you determine whether an alternative inferential pattern is worth its salt or not. I, apparently, also think there's a lot more thinking involved in philosophy than you do. To recur to the chess metaphor again, you're like the person who judges a game by the static snapshot you see, rather than seeing how the game plays out or wanting to see how the players typically move their pieces. Philosophy is about the playing, not about the pieces; it's about the players, not about the board. I would have thought that someone who knows more about Zen Buddhism than I would've understood that. DMB said: Huh? If philosophy is like playing a game, then I think you're trying to take moves back and then pretending you never made them. I think that's cheating. Matt: Yeah, I know you think I'm a cheater. But sometimes I think that's only because you think you're playing checkers, so when you see me move my knight, you get really upset. As always, 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
