From: Matt the Enraged Endorphin (mpkundert@students.wisc.edu)
Date: Mon Feb 10 2003 - 18:32:47 GMT
DMB,
I'm actually quite tired of this. Andy and Kevin, who as I understand it
had never before heard of Rorty, have seemingly picked up quite well on
Rorty's message from what I write. You still have not. I don't know why.
I've reformulated all the key points so many times that it just seems like
willful antagonism. Which is fine, but I'm sorry, I just don't have time
to write a book on an introduction to philosophy for you. For others, maybe.
DMB asked:
Does Rorty deny that dualisms plague all mankind
Matt:
Rorty denies that the plague of hypostatized dualisms that we've been
infected by from the Western tradition are an incurable plague. The notion
of a perennial philosophy seems to suggest that it is incurable.
DMB asked:
Rorty makes a distinction between "binary thinking" and "hypostatized
dualisms" What is that distinction? What is the difference?
Matt said before:
Rorty makes a
distinction between binary thinking and hypostatized dualisms. We fall
into Platonism and metaphysics if we start to think that the binaries we
use to think and cope with our environment are _real_ in sense that what is
really real are these dualisms, rather then the everchanging environment.
Rorty does think we can rid ourselves of metaphysical dualisms, but he
can't conceive of thinking without binaries.
Matt says now:
Someone who thinks that metaphysical dualisms are incurable begs the
question because they are assuming that metaphysical dualisms are incurable
and this is an assumption that the pragmatist does not hold. The
pragmatist begs the question because they are assuming that metaphysical
dualisms are curable and this is an assumption that the anti-pragmatist
does not hold.
The moral that Rorty wants to draw is that we should get rid of that "whole
nest and brood of Greek dualisms." Appearance/reality, scheme/content,
synthetic/analytic, knowledge/opinion, fact/interpretation, subject/object,
mind/matter, etc., etc. The effort to get rid of these dualisms is the
effort to stop doing metaphysics and epistemology and start doing something
else (like politics).
DMB said:
I think the mystical experience is the proper source of
all religion and philosophy. I think this is a very big part of what Pirsig
is saying. His attack on SOM's amorality is an attack on the failure to see
this. This is what's behind his attack on materialism. His criticisms of
James, of the socialists, the scientists, the ritualistic religions is all
about their failure to see DQ. I'd even go so far as to say that Rorty and
Pirsig are not only on different wavelengths, they are on different planets.
From what I can see so far, Rorty denies the most crucial aspects of
Pirsig's thinking and the MOQ is aimed at overthrowing the kind of thing
Rorty advocates. I'd characterize them as hostile to each other's purposes.
Matt:
That is one reading of Pirsig and Rorty. I've offered an alternative one
in the Forum essay.
Matt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
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 : Mon Feb 10 2003 - 18:29:34 GMT