[MD] Matt and DMB disagree?

[david buchanan]

Matt asked:
How can you attack head on that which is off kilter?

dmb says:
I'm not talking about anything other than simply addressing the guys point. 
Its not a philosophical issue. Its about courtesy and such.

Matt said:
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. ...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.

dmb says:
The reality behind the maya is what? The "brutal thrusts of reality" sounds 
like some kind of physical enviroment. It suggests an objective reality that 
we can't access directly, no? This also suggests some version of SOM, no? Or 
are you equating DQ with these "brutal thrusts'? That would be a lot like 
the undifferentiated aesthetic continuum - only meaner? Its hard to imagine. 
Anyway, you'd have to tell me what that means. But it looks to me like you 
got the same translation problem here too. The "reality" behind the maya is 
DQ.

Matt said:
Is that more head on for you? .. Haven't we spilt enough ink, as it were, to 
believe that both of us are engaging as best as we can?

dmb says:
Yea, that was several times better than the first response. We've spilt 
enough ink that I can tell when you're sand-bagging or just not trying. I 
think its fair game to bust a guy's for slacking too much, don't you? And 
based on the "brutal" response you just provided, it does seem you've missed 
the point sincerely and aren't just yanking my chain. That comes as a 
relief.

Matt said:
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.

dmb says:
You think I object to essays because they're too long? Okay, now you're just 
being silly. My complaints were about failing to engage with the other guy's 
point and those complaints are applicible to both long and short forms. 
Hell, you could write in the form of pornographic nursery rhymes and it 
would be fine by me, as long as it doesn't avoid the issues you're 
supposedly addressing.

_________________________________________________________________
Find what you need at prices you’ll love. Compare products and save at MSN® 
Shopping. 
http://shopping.msn.com/default/shp/?ptnrid=37,ptnrdata=24102&tcode=T001MSN20A0701