[MD] Neopragmatism isn't pragmatic.

[ian glendinning]

Hi DMB, inserted ... [IG]

On 10/30/06, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

[IG] You may be right. If he really concludes "it's just a matter of
agreement", in any arbitray relativistic way, then that view gets no
support from me. If I were to take the Lakoff (and others) pragmatic
view of the dead-metaphors (static patterns)of language, I think I'd
get much closer to the Pirsigian view - not so much "agreement" as
emergent from evolution within the dynamic hierarchical (moral)
framework of the MoQ.

>
> 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.

[IG] Look DMB I feared you might twist this around. Agreeing with half
of something someone says is not remotely like half-heartedly
defending them. I'm making my own point - re-inforcing one of yours in
fact - I'm being synthetic rather than "adversarial".

And I must correct your misrepresentation of me again. I do not admit
theism into the entirely atheistic MoQ. That would be silly.

Let me be clear ... moderatate faith based believers ... are a big
problem in the world. Listen to this Sue Blackmore talk on Harris "The
End of Faith."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/arts/agoodread.shtml
(half way through)

And Life ? sure is a big thing. Try this Josephson piece (on
Shroedinger and Bohr)
http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/papers/QMlimits.html

David, I understand your problem with me, you fear I may be an
"apologist" for views conflicting in key areas with the MoQ, and in
doing so somehow weaken the MoQ. I sincerely ask that you suspend your
mistrust of my motives and agreement with you, and comment on what I
actually say, if you are going to make any point of disagreeing or
ridiculing it.

Ian

>
> 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
>
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>