[MD] Matt and DMB disagree?

[Matt Kundert]

DMB said:
Its cool if you'd rather whip up another essay. I just hope you tackle some 
of this stuff head on, which would also be my only complaint about the last 
one you did. I would have like to see you handle some of Hildebrand's 
complaints, for example. It looked to me like you were only pretending that 
he didn't delivery some pretty solid punches. Likewise, your reply here 
pretty much avoids any direct contact with my point. Just so you know, I 
feel cheated by that sort of thing. Who wouldn't?

Matt:
Well, first of all, my last "little essay" wasn't a little essay.  It was 
just a post for my blog.  And secondly, I don't think Hildebrand, from the 
short piece I read, lands "some pretty solid punches."  I don't think it's 
pride or fidelity to Rorty, I just think (for reasons I enumerated) that 
he's off track.  Same as you in my case.

And yes, I would absolutely feel cheated.  Every time we start writing back 
and forth to each other, I almost invariably feel cheated because, just as 
you think I'm not understanding something, I don't think you're 
understanding something.

How can you attack head on that which is off kilter?  Isn't that why Pirsig 
didn't attack SOM head on, because if he did, on its terms, he'd lose?

Take this thing about maya.  You are absolutely right about interpreting 
Pirsig's "analogues" bit in line with Rorty's "texts all the way down" bit.  
That's how I've been reading it to everyone for years.  Now, you've finally 
come out and said that Pirsig is calling the "analogues" bit maya, which 
Pirsig never directly says, but there's evidence for.

I have two routes open to me: one, either Pirsig is relapsing because the 
heart of the appearance/reality distinction is the idea that we can shed our 
linguistic skin to get at the reality behind it.  Or two, you're 
interpreting the "reality" behind maya as what Rorty refers to in "Texts and 
Lumps" as the "brutal thrusts of the environment."  The second is fine, but 
you've been denying it and don't like it, though I'm not sure why because it 
seems totally harmless to me and should appear totally harmless to a 
pragmatist.  What you've gotten all upset about, apparently, is that you see 
Rorty denying that we can "know" this reality.  But you're switching 
definitions of "know" on Rorty.  On Rorty's interpretation, we sure can know 
all about the brutal thrusts of reality, it's just that our "knowledge" 
consists of the "analogues upon analogues upon analogues," just as Pirsig 
says it does in ZMM.

Is that more head on for you?

Please DMB, can we please dispense with that kind of name calling and cage 
rattling?  Haven't we spilt enough ink, as it were, to believe that both of 
us are engaging as best as we can?

And what's wrong with a little essay?  I've never understood why you 
disparage them.  I still tend to think that if you can say all you need to 
say in a post length, then you haven't progressed far enough to put all of 
your ideas together, haven't satisfactorily dealt with enough objections and 
the like.  As I like to point out, ZMM was not the size of a post.

Matt

_________________________________________________________________
Find a local pizza place, movie theater, and more….then map the best route! 
http://maps.live.com/?icid=hmtag1&FORM=MGAC01