Hi dmb, The whining is sooo distracting. Who wants to read such whining. Not I! "Waaaa, nobody understands..."
Marsha On Sep 25, 2012, at 6:34 PM, david buchanan <[email protected]> wrote: > > David Harding said to dmb: > ...So really, it's interesting to me that you disagree with Pirsig dmb, where > he writes: "James had tried to make his pragmatism popular by getting it > elected on the coattails of practicality. He was always eager to use such > expressions as 'cash-value,' and 'results,' and 'profits,' in order to make > pragmatism intelligible to 'the man in the street,' but this got James into > hot water. Pragmatism was attacked by critics ..." > > > dmb says: > But, David, I already told you that I wanted to put this issue off until > later and so I never even commented on this point. Since I haven't even > addressed the point, how can you portray my position on as "interesting" or > anything else? > > In fact, I don't disagree with Pirsig's observation. The problem is that you > are committing a basic error of relevance and in a particularly egregious > manner too. You're assigning positions to me on a topic I'm not even > discussing! That's the kind of gumption-sucking move that I find so > frustrating - and I almost never encounter this sort of problem anywhere but > here. > > Sigh. > > I'm guessing that you're totally unaware of what James was actually up to > with his use of his term "cash value". I'll bet you didn't know that it is an > analogy used in contrast with beliefs held on "credit". It was part of an > explanation as to the difference between truths that are actually verified in > experience and truths we adopt at second hand. James went on to explain that > most of our beliefs are never cashed out by us personally, like results of > every scientific experiment that you never personally witnessed. James's > point was that it's quite alright to adopt these second hand truths so long > as they are cashed out by somebody, somewhere. This is what guarantees that > the check will not bounce if you do personally try to cash it. He said the > whole system beliefs is held up by truths with real cash value. Which is to > say, switching to an architectural analogy, that empirically verified truths > are the central pillars that support the whole structure of belief. > > The critics preformed a similar hack job on his use of the word > "practicality". In an effort to be almost deliberately stupid about it, his > critics took "practical" to mean trivial daily tasks but in fact "practical" > just another word for "pragmatism". The idea here is just that our hypotheses > can only be rightly tested "in practice". Our ideas are useful and meaningful > only insofar as they make an actual difference in experience, when they are > put to work or put into practice. While it's true that James's critics failed > to understand that, it's also true that James's critics were mostly > Positivists or religious fanatics, who felt James was a threat to their > objective certainties and their absolutist certainties respectively. In other > words, James's critics were arch SOMers who could not comprehend pragmatism > because of those metaphysical assumptions - and their personal attachments > such eternal certainty. > > I'd also remind you that Pirsig's comments about the critics of James's > pragmatism are situated in a context wherein Pirsig is making all kinds of > comments about James's work and it's relation to the MOQ. As a reader and > interpreter, you must realize that context is one of the most important > elements, if not THEE most important feature. In terms of deriving the proper > meaning of any given passage, the context is everything. The general thrust > of the whole context in this particular case is to show how and why the MOQ > can be identified as mainstream American pragmatism. Not to mention the fact > that with his metaphysics of Pure Experience James ends up using exactly the > same terms as Pirsig (static and dynamic). > > In other words, it seems to me that you're giving more weight to one negative > point than you are to ninety-nine positive points. What kind of weird > blinders does it take to do that? What motive could prompt a person to select > that bit and ignore everything else he says about James? Seriously, how do > you justify such a distorted perspective, such arbitrary selection? > > Sadly, you never really grappled with the evidence against your central > complaint and, apparently, never really figured out what actual topic was. > This leads me to suspect that you didn't even understand you were objecting > to in the first place. > > God, it's just so frustrating to be so completely misread all the time. I > never realized what a drag that is until I went away and found a place where > people understand things like relevance and fairness. > > This isn't David. You strike me as a very decent and sincere guy. But that > doesn't mean that it's okay to hold opinions on philosophers you've never > read and it's not okay to put words in the other guy's mouth. It's not okay > to confuse topics or ignore the context in which these claims are made. > That's just not good enough. Errors like that will shut down a conversation > faster than you can say "fallacious reasoning". > > > 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
