From: Matt Kundert (pirsigaffliction@hotmail.com)
Date: Wed Oct 26 2005 - 16:49:22 BST
David said:
I thought common sense and science parted some time ago, you have no
definition of physicalism that means anything and just seem to be taking up
practices from Rorty without understanding them.
Matt:
I stand accused.
David said:
Well me and a number of philosophers of science love science but are against
physicalism as it does not say anything useful about actual scientific
practice, eg Bhaskar and Dupre. So you are just not very up to date with
SOME current theory.
Matt:
I stand accused.
David said:
Or you can always try boring someone to death, well done its nearly worked!
Matt:
I stand accused.
David said:
I am more than happy to be condescending, but it is up to you whether you
feel bad about this, interpretation most of the way down I'd remind you.
Matt:
That's funny, yet sad for me. Shrugging off responsibility for the things
you say so cavalierly is what would get you labeled a degenerate pomo, but
then---I get labeled a degenerate pomo much of the time. But I take
responsibility for what I say, so that lumping saddens me.
David said:
I do think you are weak on science and should read Dupre and Bhaskar,
Maxwell, is that not fair comment.
Matt:
I stand accused. (Funny how, coincidentally, I'm being accused of being in
love with science this very moment by the other David.)
David said:
Your knowledge of science theory mainly from Rorty and I consider this his
main weakness too.
Matt:
I stand accused.
David said:
My finger here is pinting at Rorty's political values and his presentation
of US political arrangements (his idealised ones) as of high value, where we
never get on to the sort of questioning of paid-work that say Marcuse offers
us.
Matt:
Huh, interesting. Why didn't you say that before?
David said:
Now if I was sensitive I would be hurt now. Luckily I'm not. You could ask
more questions you know.
Matt:
Yeah, but why would I want to do that? If the price of admission is
condescension and humiliation, and it'd take five or six back-and-forths to
get enough verbiage to create something coherent, why would someone keep at
it? If the talk isn't that interesting, why should someone keep trying to
plumb its tacky depths? Since you've shrugged off all responsibility, its
up to me to decide these things, and I feel great about my decision. One of
the easiest of my life, in part because of you, so thank you.
David said:
well you didn't get what I was saying, I can say that makes you 'dumb', you
can say I write 'crap', not sure how to resolve that, but hey, we are all
dumb and inarticulate much of the time. But hey,the author has no authority
now, so the reader really has to take the rap! Would you 'agree' '?'
Matt:
No, no I wouldn't. If I ever implied such a thing, I was wrong.
David said:
I really do enjoy our exchanges, but I suspect the distance between us at
the moment makes it very hard to communicate well. I wish I had more time to
explain at more length but alas I do not.
Matt:
Well, I'm glad you enjoy them. The funny thing is, I don't think the
distance between us is very far _at all_, certainly not for getting in the
way of communication. I think it mainly has to do with how stupid I am and
how shitty you write.
Matt
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
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 : Wed Oct 26 2005 - 17:01:25 BST