From: Matt the Enraged Endorphin (mpkundert@students.wisc.edu)
Date: Mon Mar 10 2003 - 16:57:49 GMT
Squonk,
Squonk said:
I understand the arguments Matt makes, but i feel his arguments are low
quality in that they are self serving.
I can't refute Matt's arguments, because Matt's position is one of, 'I
could not find a niche in the MoQ.org, so i shall adopt a position which
says no one can justify their position absolutely.' In other words, 'If i
can't be allowed in, no one at all will be allowed in.'
Matt:
That's funny, I kinda' thought I was making room for more than one
interpretation of Pirsig, rather not allowing anybody in. Squonk's right,
though: I do take the metaphilosophical position that there is no One True
Interpretation of Pirsig. I think of this as more freeing then anything
else, but....
Squonk said:
Everyone knows Quality. Quality works, and not by placing it in a pragmatic
envelope of limited dimension. If Matt has not experienced this, no amount
of argumentation can or will change things for him. Matt must tread his own
path and understand for himself.
But Andy, please do not hope for me? Allow me to reassure you that i would
on no account wish to change my experiences of Quality for those of anyone
else. As i sit here and look out into woods and contemplate a cold Spring
breeze, all is radiant and shinning with life.
Where in Matt's tedious essay will you find that? ;)
Matt:
I will never say we can "know Quality." That sounds to me too much like
defining it. But, again, Squonk is absolutely right: "no amount of
argumentation can or will change things for him." Going back all the way
to my post entitled "Confessions...," I said, following Rorty and Davidson,
our beliefs are changed causally. Reasons can be causes, but when two
conversants share too few beliefs in common, like Squonk and myself, Platt
and myself, DMB and myself, the chances of us having an argument where a
reason can cause us to change our philosophical beliefs is pretty slim.
It's why I try to do less arguing then explanations about two separate
strings of beliefs that may never intersect.
As Squonk winks at me from his forest, I get the feeling that he's
priveleging his forest over my essay. The rhetorical question, "Does my
essay have Quality?" comes to mind. "Of course it does" would be the
answer. Squonk, however, views it as low Quality. I view it as relatively
high Quality, at least, higher Quality then not writing it. So, Squonk: is
my view of Quality wrong? Is that what you are saying? I doubt Pirsig
would say that. We all view different levels of Quality in different
things, depending on the analogues we've built up, the static patterns
we've accumulated, Pirsig might say (depending on what book he was
writing). So, are my experiences wrong, Squonk? This is why I can't
understand your problem with my writings. If I could just once get a good
explanation as to why you think my writings are of low Quality, at least I
would able to understand the analogues and experiences you've had, I would
understand where you are coming from. As it happens now, I have no idea
where you are. People, I think, understand at least where I'm coming from.
I'm coming from having read a lot of Pirsig and a lot of Rorty. And some
other philosophers to boot.
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 : Mon Mar 10 2003 - 17:01:01 GMT