[MD] subject/object: pragmatism

[Matt Kundert]

David M, Matt said:[something about cultural evolution] David said:I think that is fine, but I'd want to add that when we do tell our stories we also have to account for non-linguistic aspects of our experience, and these aspects include how we understand our bodies and our behaviour that have a history both before and after language was acquired. Matt:This is funny.  I read this and went, "Of course our stories have to account for non-linguistic aspects of experience!  Who's saying otherwise?"  And then I read: David said:I see no reason why you should object to this, but think it misleading to constantly write as if it does not need including, which I think you and Rorty tend to do. Yes, Rorty does correct himself on occassions but for me the emphasis need a tug back to those aspects of life that are more than linguistic. Matt:I still don't see why it is misleading, but I suppose I'll respect your feeling that it is.  My position of defense against your feeling is still: nothing in Rorty's account (or my cooptation) leaves it out.  I would certainly not object to your addendum.  My reaction is, "Well, yes, of course, that's going to be a lot of the story.  A huge part of the story of culture is going to be how bouncing off of physical things produced such-and-such innovation, e.g., the story Jared Diamond tells."  I don't view Rorty as correcting himself, more like adding on the obvious addendum depending on what he's exactly talking about. For instance, much of the time Rorty's telling such an atmospheric story about the history of philosophy (which is kinda' like a story about the history of stories about culture), that I think Rorty _can_ neglect the material/physical/non-linguistic aspects of this story.  For instance, does Rorty always have to talk about how the invention of paper or the invention of the printing press affected philosophy?  Certainly the transition between an oral culture to a written culture is one that needs to be told a little more often (and explains a good deal about Greek attitudes towards poetry and makes Plato's position even more complicated), but I think there are many reasonable ways to tell these stories, stories that overlap, and we don't need to tell _every_ single one when we are telling _a_ single one. In other words, I'm not stopping Diamond from telling the story he told in Guns, Germs, and Steel.  I'm just telling a different story, one I'm not convinced the terms of which need to be modified.  Because if addenda are all that needs adding, then the terms certainly haven't shifted.  What I've always shied away from is your insistence on using the conversation metaphor when talking about science.  I still don't see why it is required. Matt
_________________________________________________________________
Help yourself to FREE treats served up daily at the Messenger Café. Stop by today.
http://www.cafemessenger.com/info/info_sweetstuff2.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_OctWLtagline