[MD] Another parallel

[david buchanan]

Matt:
I'd agree that some contradictions are more obvious than others, that published philosophers rarely commit what we'd call a blatant contradiction like the ones we can observe among politicians and I'd agree that the "tension" would be a good term for contradictions that are relatively subtle but I'm not buying the idea that there's anything more to it than that. 
It seems to me that the central point remains. Maybe you are spotting tensions that are too subtle for me to detect or the tensions you find are the result of an interpretation that distorts one or more of the claims involved in that perceived tension. I mean, either you are making legitimate and valid points or you're not. In pushing back against your claims, I am making legitimate and valid points or I am not. The difference is probably not that stark, of course, but I do think the difference is that clear. To discover which view is more likely or more true we'd have to explore the specific tensions in question. 
As for the complaints about my style, I don't know what to tell you. I don't really like your style either but I am presently exercising restraint. I could use terms much harsher than "snide" to characterize your response. But what would be the point except to hurt your feelings even further? Apparently, I just don't know how to express disagreement in a way that doesn't strike you as disrespectful. Apparently, I can't control your level of sensitivity any more than you can dictate my style and I don't think either is terribly relevant to the dispute anyway. Guess we'll just have to disagree about that too.
   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Matt said:
> I don't think I'm confident about "spotting contradictions," 
> though I
> do have lingering feelings from my days of 
> exclusive involvement with
> Pirsig that there were "tensions," 
> tensions being a term of art, I
> suppose, that might mean 
> two positions that seemingly pull in opposite
> ways.
> 
> DMB said:
> Okay, I'll bite. What is the difference between "two 
> positions that
> seemingly pull in opposite ways" and "a 
> contradiction"? Besides the use
> of the term "seemingly" as a 
> softener, don't they mean the same thing?
> 
> Matt:
> I suppose if I had to make something up, I'd say that a 
> contradiction requires a stipulated vocabulary of 
> articulation, so that a statement "P" could be brought next 
> to its negation "not P" in a very explicit way.
> 
> I greatly doubt any philosopher has committed to print a 
> contradiction (at least, one not meant to be a 
> contradiction).  Contradictions can be generated, though, 
> by the attempt to dialogue, by extrapolating explicit 
> statements into other contexts, by translating "Q" into the 
> language of "P," and by a very simple translating scheme 
> noticing that "Q" means "not P" (very rarely do we get, e.g., 
> the spectacle of Republicans arguing that "gov'ts can't run 
> crap" and "the gov't will run everyone out of business").
> 
> This is just to say that I take your word "contradiction" to 
> mean something very obvious, something that can be 
> _seen_ on the surface.  This, I take it, is also something 
> like what you mean by your word, "contradiction," as in your 
> choice in metaphor, in "spotting" them.
> 
> What I was talking about is something different than that, 
> which is why I don't think the intelligence of the writer, or 
> our memory of the surface of the text, has anything to do 
> with it.  What I might denote by the word "tension," in 
> opposition to "contradiction," is a feeling one gets from the 
> text, something below the surface, in its 
> potentially-extrapolated, implicit connections.  Tensions are, 
> then, not something seen, but made.  You have to make 
> your dim, implicit apprehensions of the text explicit, work 
> them out on the page.  You have to take the text, and work 
> with it, make the text speak to other parts of itself (or other 
> parts it doesn't explicitly speak to).
> 
> It would be, I suppose, on analogy with the Dynamic/static 
> distinction.  A tension is a dim apprehension, and a 
> contradiction is the static debris created only after the 
> work in explicating has been done (created something to be 
> seen).  So, on the one hand, I can grant you that the goal 
> is to turn "tensions" into "contradictions," to show explicitly 
> how P butts up against Q.  And I have worked out, in one 
> case, a stipulated vocabulary of articulation that creates an 
> explicit, let's say, variance in desired expectation (I don't 
> think Pirsig's philosophy/philosophology distinction does his 
> better angels justice).  Whether successful or not, it does 
> create something.  
> 
> But on the other hand, what I did in "Philosophologology" 
> was create a _stipulated_ vocabulary of articulation, one 
> you might think is wrong _because_ it creates tensions 
> (where, you would say, there are none), but it isn't a 
> vocabulary I have any particular attachment to in reading 
> Pirsig--it is one context out of many I've used, though the 
> only one worked out so explicitly.  And so I sit at the level 
> of "tension," rather than "contradiction," because I think 
> Pirsig's thought is too complex for one silly paper to pin 
> down.  And on this hand, then, is also my articulated sense 
> that none of the tensions I feel about Pirsig have been 
> resolved by others' articulations of Pirsig--my own doubts 
> have not been allayed.
> 
> It is perfectly legitimate to not give a damn about my 
> doubts, but I don't think I'm doing anything dogmatic or out 
> of the norm from what any other inquirer involved in a 
> long-term inquiry does.  Nor do I personally think I'm 
> distorting Pirsig, nor do I think it has really been shown that 
> I am.  Granted, that might be quite a high mountain to 
> traverse (not just convincing others, but  _that_ person, 
> too, that they were grossly mistaken), and I might not be 
> the best judge of what's been shown or not shown in regard 
> to my own case, but we always have to keep our own 
> counsel.  "Distorting" is a big, nasty word to be throwing 
> around at readers, especially when the range of articulation 
> is just too small in an e-mail.
> 
> Shit just don't get nailed down that easily.  People spend 
> their whole lives workin' in opposition to others, but they do 
> so in quasi-respect.  You have a snide lilt to your 
> written-voice, one that does true injustice to Pirsig's spirit, 
> and philosophy.  I would think the spirit of philosophy, the 
> spirit of inquiry, would rather have the communal spirit of 
> fellowship, rather than the Wilberian Infobahn predators.
> 
> DMB said:
> With respect to your confidence in spotting tensions, by the 
> way, I used the term "seems" as a softener too.
> 
> Matt:
> Sure, but I don't think I "seemed" that way at all.  I thought
> you were, if you will, distorting me.
> 
> Matt
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> NEW mobile Hotmail. Optimized for YOUR phone.  Click here.
> http://windowslive.com/Mobile?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_CS_MB_new_hotmail_072009
> 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/

_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live™ Hotmail®: Search, add, and share the web’s latest sports videos. Check it out.
http://www.windowslive.com/Online/Hotmail/Campaign/QuickAdd?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_QA_HM_sports_videos_072009&cat=sports