[MD] Neopragmatism isn't pragmatic.

[david buchanan]

Ian said:
I think we need to make a distinction here beween the Linguistic angle, and 
the SOM vs Experience angle. Even when discussing the experiential Pirsigian 
view, we are bound by language. Dave you make that point yourself early on, 
the distinction between language symbolic of some "objective reality", and 
language symbolic of "experience". ...I find the linguistic angle pretty 
pragmatic...

dmb says:
I guess the central difference between the MOQ and Rorty's language-centered 
pragmatism is that the latter is a form of relativism. Pirsig can agree with 
the insights of linguistic philosophy (the mythos constructs reality rather 
than reflects it) but he can do so without coming to the conclusion that 
truth is just a matter of agreement. That Rortarian conclusion is 
inescapably, unabashedly relativistic.

I suspect your half-hearted defense of Rorty here is not entirely unrelated 
to that whole flying spaghetti monster thing. It gives permission to believe 
any silly thing because there is no kind of reality check. This is the 
assumption that allows you to say its alright to admit theism into Pirsig's 
anti-theistic metaphysic. And there are other MOQers who are even more 
motivated than you'll ever be on this point.

I mean, according to conventional wisdom the kind of person who is most 
likely to be concerned with the evils of relativism will typically be 
religious or conservative and probably both. The neoconservatives at the 
University of Chicago, for example, were completely freaked out about it. 
That's one of the main reasons for their hatred of liberalism and 
pragmatism, with John Dewey being an icon of both. And so it seems to me 
that there are a few readers who see this anti-relativism and then Pirsig 
fans thinking that he must be on the side of conservatives. Same thing with 
scientific materialism, the theory of evolution and his discussions of 
mysticism. The conservative reads this and thinks he's got a friend in the 
philosophy business. But I'm saying that is a big mistake. The MOQ is not 
opposed to secular society, he's not a creationist, he's not a theist and 
his anti-relativism does not make him an essentialist. I'm not saying the 
MOQ supports liberalism in every way or that it doesn't have a conservative 
bone in its body. Not at all. There are some conservative elements. He 
accuses liberal intellectuals of being ungratful and oblivious the the 
tremendous achievements of social level morals have done in controlling 
biological drives, for example. But Pirsig wasn't just trying to find a 
pragmatism that a conservative could love. That's basically been the effect 
around here, but I like to think its good evidence that the MOQ has 
integrated concerns from both sides pretty damn well. I think the MOQ allows 
us to be neither an absolutist nor a relativist. It honors stability and 
innovation. It sorts out the conflict between social and intellectual values 
so we can hope for a moral science and an intelligent religion. Its a form 
of philosophical mysticism that concerns itself with actual improvements in 
everyday life. I don't mean to suggest some kind of grandiose perfection. 
I'm just saying that the Rorshack effect can play tricks on us in such a 
situaton. We don't want to unwittingly hitch ourselves to wagons moving in 
the opposite direction. I mean, you gotta have compassion for the horses, if 
nothing else.

Think of Putnam's criticisms of Rorty. (posted earlier in this thread) He 
accuses him of amoral relativism. On this point Pirsig is the conservative, 
so that guys like Platt will love to hate Rorty. I guess nobody around here 
needs to be reminded that Pirsig's central enemy is amoral scientific 
materialism and annouces out loud that he's not the relativist Rigel takes 
him for. Our conservatives friends are likely to take this as an indication 
that the MOQ supports the beliefs of God-fearing Republicans, but I really 
think you gotta take his anti-relativism seriously despite that kind of 
nonsense. Rorty's amoral relativism is way too much like the amoral 
positivism that preceded it, maybe even a morphed version of the same thing. 
I think its pretty clear the Rorty is an enemy of the MOQ. The notion that 
our reality is culturally constructed is widely known and held an we need no 
depend on Rorty for that. His vision is basically an extreme version of 
that, one that excludes everything else. He's raised Wittgenstien to a 
metaphysical principle and thereby excluded life from the equation. Life is 
no small thing, in case you hadn't noticed.

dmb

I mean, the MOQ agrees with the theists and essentialist and ditto heads who 
think relativism is a problem even if they don't agree as to WHY that's a 
problem or WHAT to do about it.

_________________________________________________________________
Try the next generation of search with Windows Live Search today!  
http://imagine-windowslive.com/minisites/searchlaunch/?locale=en-us&source=hmtagline