Matt: I don't know if this is the post you just dismissed as old and full of bullshit but I have made some points and asked you some questions. I don't think they are stale bullshit. They're fresh and sincere enough. I've issued a little challenge and I definitely mean "little". I've asked you to simply explain what you mean. That doesn't seem like too much to ask, especially in this context. Please don't run from that little challenge. I imagine everyone would really like to know what your claim means. (Pirsig is Hegelian.)
> From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2011 16:07:00 -0700 > Subject: Re: [MD] The Hero's journey > > > > DMB said to Matt: > ..My approach to the issue was very different in that it heavily emphasized > the empirical basis of common sense and the natural science. > .. your version seems to ignore the empirical dimension. To say that > scientific truths are just a matter of taste is to present a very different, > very un-empirical vision,.. > > > > Matt replied: > I guess I don't really see the difference. ... I'm not sure why you thought I > was suggesting that there was nothing empirical, rather than the reverse, > that everything is empirical. (And I'm kidding, by the way: I know why you > jumped to conclusions rather than patiently inquiring into how I see my > philosophical claims hooking up together inferentially. You did it because > you have a visceral abhorrence of Rorty. That's fine, but you really should > be more patient in investigating how different planks in a philosophy fit > together.) > > dmb says: > I "jumped to the conclusion" that you were saying there was nothing empirical > because you said it's just a matter of taste. I quoted you saying, "It's just > a different taste," you said, "like people who like chocolate on their > pancakes, but butterscotch on their ice cream". Why pretend the basis of my > objection is some big mysteriously hidden motive? I'm simply objecting to > what you said and now I've quoted that statement again. Obviously, my point > is to contradict your claim by saying it's not just a matter of taste. > The idea that I've jumped to some wild conclusion is almost as ridiculous as > the idea that you "don't really see the difference" between empirical and > not. It's simply not believable. Gee, what's the difference between much and > none? > > > Matt said to dmb: > I was using obscure jargon? I was using well-known names in the history of > philosophy. And how do I know who will find such short-hand labeling useful? > Isn't a little condescending to think that your interlocutors can't handle a > certain kind of discourse? > > dmb says: > I think your use philosophical jargon or even just words like "interlocutor" > and "discourse" is pretentious, ostentatious and unhelpful. I suppose it's > plausible that your "philosophical formulas using historical figures do have > a precise philosophical import" but why not just say what you mean so that > everyone can understand what you're saying? If it was your intention to > exclude most people from this precise import, then I'd understand your > choices as an "interlocutor". Assuming there are substantial thoughts behind > your name-dropping formulas, I think a more inclusive strategy would be > appropriate here. Is there anyone here who "gets" what you're saying when you > do it that way? > > > Anyone? > > Anyone? Please raise your hand if you can say what Matt means. > > > (crickets chirping) > > I'm not raising my hand either, Matt. Your formulas have always been way too > vague for me and you never want to say what they mean. This lack of > explanation leads me to suspect that they're all borrowed, half-understood > and just as vague to you. I suspect you CAN'T say what they mean but I'd be > more than happy to be shown that I'm wrong about that. You could score a > victory by explaining what your formulas mean, precisely, and everyone else > would win just by knowing what you mean for once. I'd be the only loser. > Wouldn't that be lovely? Go ahead, prove my suspicions are baseless. > > Matt said to DMB: > As far as I can tell, you're saying this to downplay my claim about Hegel's > influence on Dewey, or at least as how you perceive what _my_ claim entails > (versus what the exact same claim would entail in your hands), but I'm just > thinking of the Dewey of "From Absolutism to Experimentalism." (And if you > remind me of Dewey's self-described break with Hegel in that essay, I'll just > remind you that the Hegelians he was breaking from were the Absolute > Hegelians that inhabited St. Louis and Oxford. Neither Dewey nor Rorty, > Brandom, Robert Pippin, or Terry Pinkard are Absolute Hegelians, though I > would call them all Hegelians.) > > dmb says: > See, that's what I'm talking about. If you want to claim that somebody is > Hegelian in some sense (but not an Absolute Hegelian), then why not just say > what you mean? In what sense is anyone a Hegelian and why does that matter? > What's the point? What's the idea? I guess it would be safe to assume that > you think Pirsig or Dewey is Hegelian in the sense that they've adopted some > form of some of Hegel's ideas. Okay, what ideas and in what form? Why > wouldn't you want to say exactly how they are Hegelian? That term could mean > quite a number of things, right? > > > Matt said: > So, you're saying you're not going to read Hegel to find out what Dewey > thought was good in him because Pirsig, among others, disavows one piece of > Hegel? (And, because you won't read Hegel, you can't even be sure whether > Pirsig is disavowing one piece or the whole thing.) I read people like Pippin > and Pinkard on what Hegel really meant, and the stigma of the Absolute > Hegelians' interpretation of what the "Absolute" meant tends to go away. > (Though even then, I don't really feel inclined to talk about the "Absolute.") > > > dmb replies: > > There you go again. It's like saying that you have a really great idea but > you just can't show it to anyone right now. It's in the repair. It's at the > cleaners right now. You don't time to dust it off and can't be bothered to > put it on display, but boy is it ever a great idea. Even if I read the whole > of Hegel, I'd still have to guess what you mean. > > Seriously, what are you saying about the MOQ? What is Hegelian about it? In > what sense is it Hegelian? The dialectical progression of history? The idea > that reality is rational through and through? The idea that human suffering > will be justified in the end? The rejection of sense certainty or worshipful > attitude toward the state or the belief that history was wrapping things up > in our time? "Hegelian" can mean so many things. Pick one or two meanings for > the term, will you? Narrow it down for us. It doesn't have to come from my > sarcastic list, of course. I'm just having fun there and showing you how > ridiculous such a claim could be, if not qualified. Qualify it. Say something > specific. > > > > > > > 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 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
