[MD] Rorty and Pirsig

[david buchanan]

Matt asked dmb:
What would convince you that there isn't something wrong with Rorty?

dmb says:
That's a tough question. I guess it would be a matter of learning something 
new about Rorty or somehow gaining a different understanding of what I 
already know about him. Until recently that was limited to what you'd said 
about him in this forum. I hadn't read a word of his directly until the 
opportunity presented itself at the University. As you can see by the paper, 
this more rigorous approach tended confirmed my hunches. But it also became 
clear that smart, professional people disagree about Rorty just like we do. 
There doesn't seem to be much in the way of a mystical response and 
apparently Rorty isn't the only one to have dismissed Radical Empiricism, 
but the points about being trapped in SOM and being dangerously relativistic 
are fairly common. I mean, it now seems to me that our little debate is 
perfectly normal.

Matt also asked:
What would convince you that there isn't something wrong with me?

dmb says:
Cash.

Matt said:
One of the things I've been confounded by over the years is that I'm unclear 
about what counts as convincing for you, what criteria you have in judgment.

dmb says:
Well, the empirical issues layed out in the paper say quite a lot about the 
nuts and bolts of what counts as knowledge and truth, but there is also 
something about metaphysics that doesn't lend itself to that level of 
detail. I mean, despite their common rejection of Objective Truth, of 
Hegelian Absolutes and all that kind Plantonic stuff, Pirsig offers a 
coherent picture where Rorty doesn't. They have more than one important 
difference, I think, but it seems to me that Rorty says we can't have 
metaphysics while Pirsig says its unavoidable. And so anyway, I get what I 
want from the MOQ. Its a coherent picture of reality and it includes a 
diagnosis of and solution to the problems I find most compelling.

Matt said:
I'm not sure what we are quarreling over.

dmb says:
I think it usually boils down to mysticism.

Matt asked:
What do you want from Rorty?

dmb says:
Mysticism.

Matt asked:
What do you want from me?

dmb says:
Large bills, please.

Matt asked:
What would pacify your instincts that Rorty is a scorned positivist (in some 
very damning way)?

dmb says:
Evidence to the contrary, of course.

Matt asked:
What's my problem, given that I'm not a scorned positivist?

dmb says:
You follow one, of course.

Matt asked:
What in a philosophy tells you that there is something wrong with it _and 
how could that philosophy correct itself_.  The second part is important 
because we all realize that first impressions aren't always right and we 
need to be clear with ourselves about what, in fact, we don't like.

dmb says:
Not sure if I understand the question. But, like most people I suppose, its 
never just a matter of logical analysis or disinterested inspection. We like 
what we like for all kinds of reasons. I'd say its a matter of taste, but 
that would make it seem trivial or arbitrary. Intellectual respectability is 
essential, of course, but these systems have to match a person's sense of 
reality or sense of life or whatever you'd call it. Pirsig seems to be 
engaged in reality as I see it. The MOQ describes the world as I understand 
it. There are other who match and make sense to me, but Rorty feels remote, 
as if he's more concerned with what's happening in academic circles, with 
academic problems.

Matt asked:
Is it just Rorty's/my style (which makes us unlikable) or is there some 
substantive issue that we disagree on (which makes us disagreeable)?  What 
is that issue, how would you explicate it, and how would you change your 
mind about it?

dmb says:
Being a neurotic jackass, I'm not in a position to criticize anyone's style. 
Plus that would probably be trivial. I think our differences with respect 
are substantive. "Huge" is the word I would choose to describe the 
implications of this difference. That's why Radical Empiricism is the star 
of my paper.

Matt said:
Without knowing that, I wouldn't be sure how even to go about grasping 
whether or not we have a substantive difference or not.

dmb says:
Yea, it seems like its mostly a matter of me trying to convince you that 
certain elements of the MOQ are essential and they are sometime the same 
ones that you want to read past in silence or however you put it. 
Apparently, you can see that removing certain parts of Pirsig would make him 
look like Rorty. Apparently, you don't see how or why these thing matter and 
so ignoring them or dismissing is no problem. By contrast, these move make 
me scream in horror. You treat mysticism as if it were some useless vestigal 
organ like an appendix that could be removed without any ill effect. And 
maybe you even think it would be dangerous not to get rid of it. But from my 
perspective, you've removed the heart or brain of the thing. Thus the 
horror.

Finally, Matt said:
Take the language/experience controversy.  I've attempted to back you into 
corners for years with arguments that there is no controversy, that that 
difference is a red herring, not a real, substantive difference.  You've to 
this day balked, along with many others, but I have no real clear idea why.  
I'm not sure what people like you or Anthony or Hildebrand imbue in the 
notion of "experience" that makes it unavailable to Rorty.  I could never 
figure it out.  Without knowing that, and then being able to assuage fears 
or say "oh, yeah that is different," it is unclear what conversation and 
debate is going to do.

dmb says:
Again, the paper was supposed to address that. In a nutshell, Rorty says its 
text all the way down and Pirsig says that DQ generates all that text. Also, 
Radical Empiricism says we must proceed from experience and we must account 
for all experience, so it is an expansion on the classic sensory empiricism 
of the Positivist but more importantly, I think, it emphasizes the 
pre-reflective experience, the primary empirical reality as Pirsig calls it. 
This is where DQ, mysticism, and epistiemology all come together. This is 
philosophical mysticism, the thing Rorty ain't got.

Or does he? Feel free to correct me on this point. I think we agree that he 
is not a mystic. Its just that you don't care about that and I do. You think 
this part of Pirsig is optional and I don't. I mean, without that, it might 
look like Rorty but it wouldn't be the MOQ. That's my story, anyway.

I don't think there is anything wrong with you and its certainly not your 
style that bothers me. (Although jargon bothers me to the extent that it 
interferes with comprehension.) I think our disagreement is roughly parallel 
to the difference between Rorty and Pirsig. There are lots of similarities, 
but you're not a mystic. That does not make much of a difference to you, but 
we disagree about that too.

dmb

_________________________________________________________________
FREE online classifieds from Windows Live Expo – buy and sell with people 
you know 
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwex0010000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://expo.live.com?s_cid=Hotmail_tagline_12/06