From: MATTHEW PAUL KUNDERT (mpkundert@students.wisc.edu)
Date: Tue Sep 02 2003 - 21:53:54 BST
Wiping my hand across my head, I come away with blood,
DMB quoted me as saying:
Its not asanine that you're following a path of mysticism, or people are Pirsigian. What's asanine is that you call materialists dogmatic because they don't agree with you. The problem I've tried focusing on in our debates is that the materialist and the mystic will _never_ convince the other by using argumentation because the materialist and the mystic do not hold enough of the relevant premises (i.e. beliefs) in common. They both beg the question over the other.
DMB replied to the quote:
I think the issue is much more simple than that. I think that Pirsig is a mystic and Rorty is a materialist. Scientific materialism is one of Pirsig's main targets. Its the heart of the thing he hopes to replace. It hardly makes sense to interpret the MOQ through Rorty's eyes.
Matt:
Wait, what? Didn't I say that when conversing with Scott? I'm pretty sure the point of what I was saying had nothing to with the "simple issue" you raise. On your "simple issue", though, Rorty is a physicalist, but I'm willing to say materialist for the moment. What I'm not willing to say is that he's a scientific materialist. But we'll get back to that in a moment.
On my colligation not making sense, I'm not sure what else to say. Pirsig and Rorty have similar enemies. They are both American and comment on that particular social scene. They both look back to pragmatism as being an ally. If that's not enough, then it must only make sense to read Pirsig in light of Pirsig. Which I know you don't do.
DMB had said:
And since its pretty clear that scientific materialism is assumed by Rorty and friends, it just seems that all these guys have really done is abandon the most interesting questions in favor of physics and such. If that's not SOM, nothing is.
DMB quoted Matt as replying:
Right, right. Rorty assumes one thing just as you assume something else. Pointing that Rorty assumes something is fairly pointless in of itself...
DMB then replied:
Pirsig's enemy is SOM. Rorty's ideas rest on SOM assumptions. You don't see the point of that? It's not that Pirsig's view is God's own truth, but haven't you brought a Klansman to a meeting of the NAACP? Why wouldn't you expect some objections to such a bad mix, an incompatability Rorty himself has confirmed. That's the point and I think its quite enough.
Matt:
Okay.... Rorty's ideas are SOM. How, what would you call it? Sloganistic? And didn't you just say in another post addressed to me that you are coming to see that Rorty and Pirsig are fighting the same enemy? Did you see that after you wrote this?
Secondly, what I want to know is where those dots lead to on that quote DMB has me down for. Let's go back to the tape:
"Right, right. Rorty assumes one thing just as you assume something else. Pointing that Rorty assumes something is fairly pointless in of itself. However, Rorty has most certainly not abandoned the "most interesting questions in favor of physics." That's what maybe the logical positivists wanted to do, but Rorty is too much of an effete dilletante to do that. What Rorty argues is that we do not need to underscore science, politics, or morality with a epistemico-metaphysical system or theory. Science does what it does without such a theory just fine. Politics does what it does without such a theory just fine. Morality does without such a theory just fine. To help science, we need more experiments and hypotheses, which generally philosophy doesn't provide. To help politics, we need more proposals for practical policies, which generally philosophy doesn't provide. To help morality, we need more descriptions of the way people are immiserated, which generally philosophy doesn't p
rovide. On the last count, what helps morality is literature and ethnographies."
Hmm, that sounds much more like a response then what you had me down for. Assuming then that you read it I'm curious what you thought about my response. Was it wanting and you still think that Rorty's a scientific materialist? Or am I to assume that the evil people are just "materialists" now, and not necessarily limited to "scientific materialists"?
DMB said:
Modern interpretations of Plato have all but erased all references to myth and mysticism. The culture is hostile to mysticism generally and is one of the things we tend to filter out. But when we look at Plato's work in the context of his own time and culture, it is increasingly easy to see that his work is saturated with references to myth and he belonged to a long tradition of mysticism and mystery religions.
Matt:
Wait, did I say anything about myth and mysticism in Plato, of which I agree, there probably is a lot of? Roll the tape:
Matt had said:
Well, all I was saying about Plato was that he certainly thought ordinary experience was an illusion. Hence, the "via our senses" part. However, I don't remember anything in Plato about direct experience leading to the underlying unity of reality.
Matt:
Oh, no I didn't. I was just wondering where Plato said anything like "direct experience leading to the underlying unity of reality." You don't have to answer, mind you, though I definitely am genuinely curious because I've studied Plato many times, but I do wish you wouldn't respond to me in a way that makes it look like I'm saying something I'm not.
Matt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Sep 02 2003 - 22:02:58 BST