Can't be so that it is forbidden to ask horse 's approval to expand a bit on politics,as a cure for depletion. I would support the idea, but the theatre is Horse's area.
2016-11-23 12:59 GMT+01:00 David Harding <[email protected]>: > Hi dmb, > > > Ahhh yes - Rorty. I’m sure you’ve seen all the latest news about him… > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/books/richard-rortys- > 1998-book-suggested-election-2016-was-coming.html > > > > > I’ve ordered the book as it appears to have been very astute analysis. > It’s a shame we can’t discuss politics much here as the MOQ provides such a > great language to discuss it. > > > > > > > > Sent with Unibox > > > > > On Nov 23, 2016, at 5:05 AM, david <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > David Harding said to dmb: > > > > > > I do wonder if you agree with the words you write when you’re > continually referring to what ‘Pirsig says'. Do you agree with Pirsig? > What’s your opinion? > > > > > > > > > > > > dmb says: > > > > > > Yes, I agree with Pirsig in particular and with Classical Pragmatism in > general. I like to quote Pirsig in order to present and explain the ideas > rather than defend them. It seems to me that nearly every "critic" of the > MOQ ends up attacking ideas that are NOT actually features of the MOQ but > rather products of the critic's misunderstanding. Since there's no point in > defending a distorted idea that Pirsig never endorsed, it's better to > answer the critic by offering an undistorted version of that idea. In this > case, for example, Tuukka was operating with conspicuously incorrect > conceptions of "dialectic" and "rhetoric". Pirsig's own comments on the > topic serve as the perfect antidote to poison, I think. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > David Harding said: > > > > > > On this point I’m not so sure but in your first paragraph you write that > a traditional understanding of rhetoric and sophistry is fine as there are > so many hucksters out there. But on this I disagree. I would argue that > it’s precisely because of our traditional understanding of these terms that > there are so many hucksters and deceivers out there. ... > > > > > > > > > > > > dmb says: > > > > > > Think of it this way: People use the term "vandalism" to describe > pointless destruction and that's find because there are people who destroy > thing for no particular reason but we can also speak historically about the > Germanic tribe called "Vandals" and make a case that the conventional term > is slanderous toward actual Vandals. In the same way, we can use > "sophistry" to describe Trump or talk radio hosts but still make a case > that this is slanderous toward the actual Sophists of ancient Greece. I > mean, if you're talking to Pirsig and he says you're a great rhetorician > then you should know that you have not been insulted. Quite the opposite. > In that context, you would have been very flattered. But it you're down at > the local bar and some dude accuses you of sophistry, then you have been > insulted (and I would not mind meeting the kind people who hang out there > because that's my kind of insult). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > David Harding said: > > > > > > What’s missed by Socrates is that he, and not the Sophists, is being the > deceptive one by claiming he doesn’t know what is good. That’s why I think > it’s our current day Metaphysics, built upon Socrates assumption, that > creates this deceptive attitude. One in which the words we speak can be > meaningless so who really cares about them anyway? And Quality forget that > - what’s that? Furthermore, how can you be honest and speak to the > wholeness of experience without perceiving and speaking directly of its > Quality? And how better to continually do this than with a Metaphysics > which points out that all things are built upon it, and so are it? But you > were probably just giving a throwaway line and I’m reading too much into > this but figure it’s worth a chat anyway :) > > > > > > > > > > > > dmb says: > > > > > > It's not clear what you mean, David, but I'll give an indirect answer > and just hope that some of it addresses your concern. > > > > > > Socrates actually ends up looking pretty good. That short epigraph from > the front of ZAMM - Do we need anyone to tell us what's Good and what's not > Good? - that line is put into the mouth of Socrates (in Plato's Phaedrus). > It's really Plato himself - or rather Platonism in general - that is so > much at odds with the MOQ. This isn't just because of the vicious slander > against the Sophists but also against the view that Truth is eternal and > separate from the world as it appears to us finite mortals. By contrast, > Pirsig says that Man is the measure of all things, a participant in the > creation of all things, and that means that there is no eternal Truth > beyond appearances but only humanly constructed truths within a human > context. As William James put it, 'The trail of the human serpent is over > all.' This anti-Platonism is a common feature of Pragmatism, the meaning of > which has been enriched by reading people like William James, John Dewey, > and even Richard Rorty. > > > > > > > > > > > > "At the same time as I was worrying about this tension within Platonism > – and within any form of what Dewey had called 'the quest for certainty' – > I was also worrying about the familiar problem of how one could possibly > get a noncircular justification of any debatable stand on any important > issue. The more philosophers I read, the clearer it seemed that each of > them could carry their views back to first principles which were > incompatible with the first principles of their opponents, and that none of > them ever got to that fabled place 'beyond hypotheses'. There seemed to be > nothing like a neutral standpoint from which these alternative first > principles could be evaluated. But if there were no such standpoint, then > the whole idea of 'rational certainty', and the whole Socratic-Platonic > idea of replacing passion by reason, seemed not to make much sense." -- > Richard Rorty, 1992 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> On Nov 21, 2016, at 9:47 AM, david <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Hello, MOQers: > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> I suppose everyone knows that people are suspicious of the emotional > language in "rhetoric" and consider "sophistry" to be a form of > manipulative deception. The conventional meaning isn't likely to change > anytime soon and that's fine because there is empty speech and there are > plenty of manipulative deceivers that deserve the name. In telling the > story of philosophy Pirsig turns those meanings upside down. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> “Plato’s hatred of the rhetoricians was part of a much larger struggle > in which the reality of the Good, represented by the Sophists, and the > reality of the True, represented by the dialecticians, were engaged in a > huge struggle for the future mind of man.” -- Robert Pirsig > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> As the story is usually told, rhetoric is too emotional to be > considered serious about the truth. Our feelings have no bearing on the > truth, this story goes, and clear thinking is about cool logic and putting > one's passions aside. But, Pirsig says, this story doesn't make as much > sense as it used to. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> “It’s been necessary since before the time of Socrates to reject the > passions, the emotions, in order to free the rational mind for an > understanding of nature’s order which was as yet unknown. Now it’s time to > further an understanding of nature’s order by reassimilating those passions > which were originally fled from. The passions, the emotions, the affective > domain of man’s consciousness, are a part of nature’s order too. The > central part.” — Robert Pirsig > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> At certain points in the re-telling and inversion of this old > slanderous story Pirsig is downright angry about it. He finally realizes > that the Platonic demand for passionless dialectic has the effect of > excluding Quality, which is the whole thing for Pirsig. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> “Phædrus’ mind races on and on and then on further, seeing now at last > a kind of evil thing, an evil deeply entrenched in himself, which pretends > to try and understand love and beauty and truth and wisdom but whose real > purpose is never to understand them, whose real purpose is always to usurp > them and enthrone itself. Dialectic - the usurper. That is what he sees. > The parvenu, muscling in on all that is Good and seeking to contain it and > control it." > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> And he's feeling triumphant about this discovery because it turns out > that the Sophists weren't demagogues, hucksters, or confidence men. They > were teaching Quality and they were teaching it the same way he had been > teaching it to his student in Montana. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> "Lightning hits! Quality! Virtue! Dharma! That is what the Sophists > were teaching! Not ethical relativism. Not pristine 'virtue.' But areté. > Excellence. Dharma! Before the Church of Reason. Before substance. Before > form. Before mind and matter. Before dialectic itself. Quality had been > absolute. Those first teachers of the Western world were teaching Quality, > and the medium they had chosen was that of rhetoric." > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> And this re-telling of ancient history is part of the book's central > project, which is a root expansion of rationality. The criticisms of > rationality that he offers almost always involve the problem of objective > truth. Value-free science has got to go, he says. Attitudes of objectivity > make our thinking stiff and narrow and entail a denigration of subjectivity > so that Quality is JUST what you like, is JUST your opinion or assessment > of some thing or other. But this is part of that same old slander against > the Sophists and rhetoricians, Pirsig says, and our form of rationality > would actually be vastly improved by putting Quality at the cutting edge of > all experience and all thought. Quality is right there at the very roots of > our thinking and by including Quality our thinking is broadened and > deepened and enriched by the inclusion of the emotional and aesthetic > quality that pervades our thought regardless of whether we acknowledge it > or not. You gotta have a feel for the work, he says, and that's not just > about fixing motorcycles. It's about everything. All the time. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> For Pirsig, "rhetoric" simply means excellence in thought and speech. > Rhetoric is truer than objective truth because it includes the heart as > well the head, so to speak. To talk truthfully will mean that the claim is > supported by evidence and its expression logically sound, just as before, > but that's no longer good enough. Speaking truthfully also means that you > care about the truth, have feelings about that truth and maybe your > expression shows the power or the beauty of that truth. To move or persuade > another is not a sinister manipulation or a deception. It's a good thing > and we should love it somebody does it right. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ________________________________ > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> 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 Online - MOQ_Discuss<http://moq.org/md/archives.html> > > moq.org > > Robert M. Pirsig's MoQ deals with the fundamentals of existence and > provides a more coherent system for understanding reality than our current > paradigms allow > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> MOQ Online - MOQ_Discuss<http://moq.org/md/archives.html> > >> > > > > MOQ Online - MOQ_Discuss<http://moq.org/md/archives.html> > > moq.org > > Robert M. Pirsig's MoQ deals with the fundamentals of existence and > provides a more coherent system for understanding reality than our current > paradigms allow > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> moq.org > >> Robert M. Pirsig's MoQ deals with the fundamentals of existence and > provides a more coherent system for understanding reality than our current > paradigms allow > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> 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 Online - MOQ_Discuss<http://moq.org/md/archives.html> > > moq.org > > Robert M. Pirsig's MoQ deals with the fundamentals of existence and > provides a more coherent system for understanding reality than our current > paradigms allow > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > 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 Online - MOQ_Discuss<http://moq.org/md/archives.html> > > moq.org > > Robert M. Pirsig's MoQ deals with the fundamentals of existence and > provides a more coherent system for understanding reality than our current > paradigms allow > > > > > > > > > > > > David Harding said to > > 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 > -- parser 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
