Re: MD A metaphysics

From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Sun Sep 21 2003 - 14:23:05 BST

  • Next message: Platt Holden: "RE: MD MoQ platypuses"

    Hi DMB

    I would say that Rorty is trying to escape
    using the subject-object divide to devalue either
    side, so to expect him to say merely 'subjective'
    or imply this is off mark. For a pragmatist talk
    about anything has as much status as we give it within
    our talking communities. You might think this leaves us
    trying to find our feet on nothing, I would probably agree, but when he
    objects any objective truth we could
    all agree on, he clearly drops labelling anything as merely
    subjective. With such a strong rejection being voiced you
    really should go and read him. I agree with what you are rejecting, but very
    rarely think that it applies very well to Rorty. I want to go beyond Rorty,
    but it depends where
    you are starting from. At one time Rorty played a big part in moving me
    along to where I am now. For me he is on the road from where we are to
    somewhere better.

    dmb says:
    Exactly. It seems to take all the most interesting things about being human
    and either rejects outright or relegates them to the private sphere. It
    breaks my heart a little bit. Its brittle and cold.

    DM: Yes, I would like to see the private sphere as no longer being a ghetto
    for life.
    I think this goes hand in hand with some extra democracy, like democracy in
    the
    work place. And lower working hours, more participation, more stable
    communities.

    Regards
    David M

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Ian Glendinning" <ian@psybertron.org>
    To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2003 10:00 AM
    Subject: RE: MD A metaphysics

    > David, David and Matt, ..
    >
    > DMB said
    > I'm only asking you to explain what you post here. Why is that such a
    > difficult point to grasp? Why should it bother you....Pulling teeth is a
    > breeze by
    > comparison.
    >
    > Ian says
    > Remember our "I don't do long mails" spat, DMB ? I don't do long
    dialectical
    > arguments, etc ?
    >
    > I think this is my Catch22 again (What ? I hear you say).
    > I said I owed you an essay, but for now
    > I genuinely believe it is difficult (for some of us at least) to apply
    > simple (logical, dialectical, SOMist) rationale to argue pragmatist /
    MoQist
    > points. It's very frustrating, and no doubt sounds like a cop out,
    arrogant
    > even, but I'm genuine. I'm sure Matt is genuine too, just frustrated
    > perhaps.
    >
    > Ian
    >
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
    > [mailto:owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk]On Behalf Of David Buchanan
    > Sent: 21 September 2003 00:55
    > To: 'moq_discuss@moq.org'
    > Subject: RE: MD A metaphysics
    >
    >
    > Matt and all:
    >
    > DMB had said:
    > How do my repeated pleas for ordinary language make me look arrogant?
    > ...Should I really have to read a set of books simply to carry on a
    > conversation? No, that's not reasonable.
    >
    > Matt replied:
    > Is it reasonable that an adult trying to carry on an adult conversation
    > about basketball should have to repeatedly, over and over again, explain
    in
    > simplistic terms the rules of basketball to a child because the child
    wants
    > to participate? ...I've tried to play the teacher...,I'm just not offering
    > Phil 101 this semester.
    >
    > dmb said:
    > This analogy is excessively insulting, but that's not what bothers me. I'm
    > not asking you to teach philosophy 101, I'm only asking you to explain
    what
    > you post here. Why is that such a difficult point to grasp? Why should it
    > bother you. I'm always happy to explain what I mean and so is most
    everyone
    > else. It seems like you're incapable of expressing yourself and fly into a
    > narcissistic rage whenever you're asked to do so. You should take your own
    > advice. If you don't want to even try to explain things in terms
    accessable
    > to non-Rortyites then just ignore me. Why bother with the insults? I've
    > tried to import some critics of Rorty just so you can see that I'm not
    > entirely alone with my questions, but you usually just end up insulting
    them
    > too. As the lurkers have so recently suggested, jargon only puts people
    off.
    > It locks them out. I honestly don't know why this obvious point so elusive
    > to you. Is it just a matter of pride at this point? You won't do it just
    > because it is ME asking you to do it? C'mon, Matt. Put your ego in the
    > freezer for a night, will you? Jeeez. Pulling teeth is a breeze by
    > comparison.
    >
    >
    > 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
    >
    >
    >
    > 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
    >
    >

    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 : Sun Sep 21 2003 - 14:21:13 BST