[MD] suspended in language

Wed Nov 11 04:31:54 PST 2009

Hello Matt,
You bring up up some counterpoints that I have not mulled over too well.
Addressing the misunderstandings of Pragmatism as legitimate arguements 
against it. It always seemed to be the most difficult part of Pragmatism to explain
to it's detractors and perhaps there is where the bulk of my comments lie.
Obviously, Pirsig thought it was enough of a problem to try to transcend and as you
propose, perhaps it needed not to be transcended. He clearly aims to beat the 
anthropological barrier of cultural bias and as you submit, it is arguable whether or not
he is successful in this endeavor.

Matt:
I can understand why you might say this, but I don't 
think it's right, generally speaking.  The spectare of SOM 
is a long-hanging giant, and I don't think it hurts to 
exercise the death rites.

For instance, the above--to agree or disagree would be 
to make Pirsig directly a target of the concerns Pirsig 
helped most of us become attuned to, it would be to look 
at the choir and wonder whether someone is singing out 
of tune.

You can't always do that, but then I don't think anyone 
here is actually always doing that.  Except for me: DMB 
has long made an easily executed case that I have one 
concern and that I endlessly inflict it on everyone else.  
I only try to make his case easier by not denying it.

Ron:
Beating it into the ground with lust and hatred
is just plain cumbersome and unnecessary, isn't
one of the ideas of MoQ that it is complimentary to SOM?
To which killing the thing is destroying  half the explainatory power?
constantly setting up straw men to destroy just seems like
so much self indulgent hate venting, a voodoo doll, an effigy to place
everything wrong with our lives on and burn. I think I disagree with
killing SOM and dragging it's body through the streets for eveyone to kick
and spit on, stringing up any suspected of collaboration.
 I think it's missing the point entirely.
In your last bout with Dave, I made an effort at some inroads, but I think
all it did was illustrate how much I really do not understand  the conflict
you fellas have. You both are very intelligent articulate thinkers and style of debate
I think plays a role.
Thanks Matt, you changed my mind on a few issues and gave me a bit to consider
concerning MoQ and Pragmatism.

----- Original Message ----
From: Matt Kundert <pirsigaffliction at hotmail.com>
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Sent: Tue, November 10, 2009 8:04:42 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] suspended in language

Ron said:
A fine point Steve, in fact, it's this sort of preconception 
that Pirsig hoped to save Pragmatism from with the MoQ. 
with a value centered metaphysic "Good" ceases to be 
relative and meaningless, the good in MoQ, has 4 distinct 
heirarchal meanings. It's not "anything you like". thats 
why the whole moral order concept was so 
groundbreaking to the Pragmatic cause.

Matt:
I'm not sure Pirsig's so-called innovation within 
pragmatism was either needed (I don't think it broke 
ground) or desirable (I think it might have been 
retrogressive).

Not a popular stance, but I tend to think "anything you 
like" understandings of pragmatism were always 
mis-understandings, including Pirsig's--he needed to 
misunderstand James to be in a position to heal it.  
Pragmatism never needed to be saved from relativity, 
only from meaninglessness.  The Platonic-scarecrow 
known as "Relativism" is produced by thinking that 
relativity equates to meaninglessness.  Cutting that cord, 
by evicting the thought the relativity engenders loss of 
meaning, is the only thing pragmatism (or Marsha) 
needed to do.

Likewise, Pirsig's so-called contribution, the "moral order 
concept," the levels, doesn't strike me as that new in 
general, and it doesn't strike me as needed--why do we 
need the idea of static levels to make judgments, to 
refute "anything goes"?  Aren't we judging machines (it's 
value all the way down...)?

And with the levels themselves, doesn't the idea that we 
_do_ need levels to make judgments re-introduce just 
that thing that making Quality=Reality was supposed to 
eliminate, the demand for a judgment-platform (the 
platform "Objectivity" was supposed to introduce)?

A thorough-going holism is what I think pragmatism is 
after, and the institution of levels seems to me 
retrogressive when introduced at the abstract level of 
philosophy.  It is one thing to make judgments about 
culturally-based items as they arise (like judging Islam 
or Christanity as a cultural artifact of a bloodier time, 
best left behind).  I think it another thing to think these 
judgments need an abstract, philosophical justification.  
If you want to write a historico-philosophical anthropology 
about the pattern of cultures, that sounds great--but why 
think that you need one to _ground_ your judgments, as 
opposed to the off-chance the narrative might _help_ 
your judgments.  The lack of _ground_ was Pirsig's 
criticism of James: Pirsig didn't think he was going to 
necessarily _help_ us make judgments (which was 
actually prescient on his part).

Ron said:
I can understand how relativism is a counterstance to 
notions of all forms of absolutism but here it's so much 
preaching to the choir, a straw man in our Moq discuss 
context. looking for it in every conversation just to get 
off on knocking him down just gets in the way of any 
meaningful conversation on the subject. It just turns 
into a selfish cathartic exercise that alienates anyone 
foolish enough to try to have a discussion about it.

Matt:
I can understand why you might say this, but I don't 
think it's right, generally speaking.  The spectare of SOM 
is a long-hanging giant, and I don't think it hurts to 
exercise the death rites.

For instance, the above--to agree or disagree would be 
to make Pirsig directly a target of the concerns Pirsig 
helped most of us become attuned to, it would be to look 
at the choir and wonder whether someone is singing out 
of tune.

You can't always do that, but then I don't think anyone 
here is actually always doing that.  Except for me: DMB 
has long made an easily executed case that I have one 
concern and that I endlessly inflict it on everyone else.  
I only try to make his case easier by not denying it.

Matt

> Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 13:05:26 -0800
> From: xacto at rocketmail.com
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Subject: Re: [MD] suspended in language
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Matt, Steve,
> 
> 
> > Matt:
> > As I see it, and this lies at the heart of my effort in this
> > conversation, the dispute between you and Steve is an
> > _internal_ dispute about the best way forward for the
> > _common community_ both of you reside in.  Whereas
> > it occasionally appears, Marsha, that you do not
> > recognize Steve and yourself as in a common struggle
> > against someone else (Platonism).  That's why, that
> > while ago, I glossed briefly on the feeling of isolation
> > in relativism.  I don't think you are alone as it
> > sometimes appears you feel.
> >
> > I think of "relativist" as a similar terror-epithet in the
> > philosophical community.  Some, like you Marsha, see
> > value in trying to reclaim it.  Others, like Steve, don't.
> > But you're in the same community, deciding the best
> > way forward.
> 
> Steve:
> Exactly. I don't think Marsha and I diagree about our epistemic
> situation. I think the most significant disagreement here is just what
> the word "relativism" means. Personally, I can't see why anyone would
> want to call herself that since I pretty much only ever hear the term
> used as an epithet--as name-calling used to dismiss the arguments of
> another without addressing the argument. It is like being called an
> asshole and responding, "yep, I'm an asshole, but being an asshole is
> not what people seem to think it is. Being an asshole is actually a
> good thing." That would be a tough sell, and I can't see how it would
> be worth the effort.
> 
> Ron:
> A fine point Steve, in fact, it's this sort of preconception that Pirsig hoped
> to save Pragmatism from with the MoQ. with a value centered metaphysic
> "Good" ceases to be relative and meaningless, the good in MoQ, has 4
> distinct heirarchal meanings. It's not "anything you like". thats why the whole
> moral order concept was so groundbreaking to the Pragmatic cause.
> 
> I can understand how relativism is a counterstance to notions of all forms of absolutism
> but here it's so much preaching to the choir, a straw man in our Moq discuss context.
> looking for it in every conversation just to get off on knocking him down just gets
> in the way of any meaningful conversation on the subject. It just turns into a selfish cathartic
> exercise that alienates anyone foolish enough to try to have a discussion about it.

_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/177141665/direct/01/
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/