[MD] Philosophy and Philosophology

[Matt Kundert]

Hi John,

John said:
So do you have a problem with "pure" as  descriptive term 
for "experience"?

Matt:
Yeah, more or less.  The whole constellation surrounding 
the term "experience"--pure/impure, immediate/mediate, 
pre-intellectual/post---have given me headaches for some 
time.  Some people see them quite clearly; they remain 
opaque, if not down right suspicious to me.

John said:
If you truly think that present power has not been writing 
itself into power throughout the past, well I just don't know 
what to say.  It sounds to me mainly like you have a dog in 
this fight and see a changing of the guard coming that 
threatens "your" side.  Is that the case?  Just cuz we 
criticise SOM is no reason to turn our backs on objectivity, 
Matt.

Matt:
Let me put it this way: I don't think it is either impossible or 
undesirable to tell a progressive story about our cultural 
evolution.  Some do.  Some think, like Foucault, that any 
suggestion about what to do politically is simply to repeat 
"the system" again.  I think there has been change, and 
sometimes change for the better.  The better have 
occasionally gotten into power, and hell I hope they repeat 
themselves--until we come up with something better, that is.  
That's why Dewey said his purpose was to break the crust of 
convention.  Convention is just the good ideas of the 
past--they _were_ good, but not so much anymore.  On the 
other hand, not all change is necessarily good.  
Baby/bathwater stuff.

One reason I don't think anyone's come up with a better idea 
for protecting intellectual quality than tenure is because of 
its protection of "sleepers," as it were.  Look at Richard 
Rorty, one of my philosophical heroes.  He was an insider for 
20 years, elected Prez of the APA, and the year he was to 
give his Address, his book pissing all over professional 
philosophy came out, and then the Address itself pissed all 
over the profession (note: I don't think this is actually true, 
but that is almost universally what professional philosophers 
as a whole have come to think).  So what did he do?  
Became a villian to professional philosophers, but continued 
to write about them till he died almost 30 years later.

Sure, I have a dog in the race, but it's more like the 
universal dog of concern-about-humanity.  I certainly ain't 
gettin' paid for it, and no accolades are headed my way.  
Sure, I feel strongly, and I will one day (hopefully) become 
one of those scrambling for an adjunct position, but I'm not 
sure I'd even have a shot at tenure-track junk even if they 
were available--my concern is wider than narrowly personal.  
My concern is, sincerely I think, about culture as a whole.  
That's my dog (so I think).

For instance, even after all my blah blah push push of 
opinionation, what did I set down as my first step: not an 
answer to a question, but a step towards formulating a good 
question--separate the topics of high schools from colleges.  
I think there are things to be said on the side of changing 
tenure in high schools, and for myself, the issue is still open.  
But for college: I haven't heard a good reason, only bad 
ones (though you never know).  My first concern is having 
a better dialogue about these questions because, I think,
 _we all have a dog in this race_.  Don't mistake passion for 
bad bias, nor objectivity for unconcern (though I understand 
the suspicion).

John said:
The sad truth is, when the Titanic hits the iceberg, the 
worthy drown with the rats.  And nothing affects 
intellectual quality itself.  What is affected is the quality of 
intellect that a society possesses.  And that has more to do 
with what is on TV than what is in the classroom.  
Unfortunately.

Matt:
Let me say first: on a strictly Pirsigian note, I think it is a 
misnomer to say that "nothing affects intellectual quality 
itself."  I don't think we can, nor should, think of the 
intellectual level in isolation of _people_ because doing so 
leads to the hypostatization of ideas (which is something 
like Platonism).  Pirsig had levels on top of levels for a reason, 
in this respect.

But your larger point, though, is well taken, and why I usually 
talk about money when I talk about politics (in the rare cases 
that I do).  I think it all starts, even if it doesn't end, with 
money.

For instance, kids are being raised by TV, right?  Hear it all 
the time.  Where are the parents, to turn that shit off and 
shove a book in their face?  They're at work, by and large, 
because _both_ have to work, and nowadays two or even 
three jobs.  The 50s worked to produce the upheaval of the 
60s _because_ of the monetary security, which produced 
good kids who felt safe to question authority.  The neocons 
saw that, and said the hell with that (as Reagan said to 
Californians when he abolished free state-school education, 
"I'm not paying for someone to protest my policies")--if 
people are insecure about their jobs, and too busy to think 
let alone do anything about the filth we pump down their 
throats, then we'll be able to stay in power--and keep 
things the same--forever.  Neoconservativism is a true 
conservativism, though I think it does great injustice tp the 
specifically _democractic_ forms that are wary of change 
(which should embody the Larry Sanders dicta, "Too much 
change is bad for the system"--not against change, per se, 
so much as trying to reign in the speed) because its 
endgame is essentially fascism these days--state-enforced 
corporatism.

Matt

_________________________________________________________________
Bing™ brings you maps, menus, and reviews organized in one place. Try it now.
http://www.bing.com/search?q=restaurants&form=MLOGEN&publ=WLHMTAG&crea=TXT_MLOGEN_Local_Local_Restaurants_1x1