[MD] suspended in language

[Matt Kundert]

Hey Ron,

Ron said:
First off let me say I think reading Plato as upholding a 
particular philosphical position is misinterpreting his 
work. The dialogs I'm fairly certain, were meant  to 
stimulate discussions on the matter. Protagoras, is 
credited for having developed what we know as Socratic 
method.  

Matt:
Well, first off let me say that while on the one hand I 
may agree that Plato's dialogues en masse probably do 
not constitute a stable philosophical position, one Plato 
held from the Euthyphro to the Laws, and on the second 
hand I am somewhat persuaded by the idea that the 
dialogues were meant as starting points for classes in 
Plato's Academy, I'm: 1) not persuaded that all of his 
dialogues _simply_ represent starting points and 2) for 
my purposes, it is moot what the _correct_ interpretation 
of Plato is when _tradition_, that PR machine, is what has 
generated public perception for so long.  We can correct 
the relationship between Plato and Protagoras, and finally 
figure out just how Plato probably saw it, but that's a 
different question than deciding which spiritual ancestry 
is the one that should live on, the one known as "Plato" or 
"Protagoras".  It's like getting Greek slavery right--when 
the question is about what to do now, at a certain point, 
who cares: slavery's wrong, whatever slavery was 
exactly like back then.  There's a difference between 
mining the past for wisdom and getting the past right.

Ron said:
That said, It's really quite an interesting discussion in 
regard to what is meant by the term "relativism" One 
that has bearing on the finer points of Pragmatism and 
MoQ. As far as talking past each other, christ, it's what 
this forum does. Everyone has their own agenda. As John 
Carl would say, deal with it. But I think if we  are all open 
to discussion and open to have our opinions changed, the 
discussion is a fruitful one. To me this is the whole casaba, 
and the subject of relativism one of the most important.

Matt:
Well, fair enough, broadly speaking about what generally 
happens in the MD between correspondents.  But we can 
all see an ebb and flow in your own outlook on this 
particular conversation, well enough to know that a 
wrong turn might bring back another exasperated cry of, 
"This is the stupidest conversation I've ever had."  I've 
been there.  The point of view I had then, and have now, 
is that there are ups and downs between particular people 
in particular conversations, and that conversation about 
relativism looked darkly down to me.  But I've had 
enough hairpin resurrections of dialogues to know that 
things can change, and I've had enough mind-expanding 
conversations on the MD to refute the notion that talking 
past each other is just "what this forum does."  I know 
why you said it, but you might bear in mind why I said 
what I did.

Ron said:
The long and the short of it is, while you think niether 
Steve or I were making any kind of good argument on 
the subject, I feel Steve had it fairly well asessed as the 
SOM arguement it is and arguing it is rather pointless 
from the viewpoint of the MoQ which takes both sides.

Matt:
I apologize if you thought I didn't think any kinds of good 
arguments were being made--are you referring to my 
"everyone's talking past each other" comment?  I think 
Steve makes lots of good arguments, and though I have 
trouble understanding some of yours, you're not always 
short on them either--but I'm not sure many of the 
responses made to Marsha (or Marsha back) were what 
we might call forward moving.  They didn't strike me as 
to the point.

For instance, Steve's argument, which isn't that the MoQ 
takes both sides of an SOM debate but rather neither 
side, I didn't think was quite apropos in its later stages of 
deployment.  Steve's argument was that if relativism is 
opposed to absolutism, then both should fall in a heap if 
the MoQ is right.  The argument in the later 
stages--because of Marsha's responses--had to take the 
form of "relativism only makes sense if opposed to 
absolutism, and therefore, etc."  That, I think, was a 
mistake on Steve's part, one produced by the frustration 
of having a conversation partner who didn't want to have 
the conversation.  Early on, I think Steve was only 
making a rhetorical recommendation, but because 
Marsha kept construing both me and he as taking 
dictatorial control over the word "relativism," Steve 
finally did--but that doesn't seem right, and I don't think 
Steve really believes it.  Marsha sometimes has trouble 
seeing the difference between a suggestion and a 
demand, and in reacting to a suggestion as a demand 
one sometimes produces demands out of 
counter-reactive spite.

Ron said:
Protagoras argues that experience is colored by the past,

which it is. The spectre of bias and prejudice the 
Pragmatists and
Pirsig contend with which aims them 
toward pre-intellectual or raw
experience as the arbiter 
of any "true" meaning.

Matt:
Ahhhh--I'm
beginning finally to see the way things take 
conceptual shape for you. 
This makes a lot more sense 
out of what you were saying about
"absolute" to Marsha.

My short re-coloring of the situation
(leaving correct 
interpretation of Pirsig to the side) is that: 1) some
of 
the classical pragmatists some of the time would have 
agreed with
you about "pre-intellectual or raw 
experience" as an "arbiter," but not
all of the time and 
2) there is still disagreement today about just
what role 
"raw experience" plays for pragmatism, but the brand 
of
pragmatism that I like (exemplified by Rorty and 
Stout) doesn't think
there _is_ a "spectre of bias and 
prejudice" and so we need no
arbiter.  I think this 
"spectre" you speak of is the same Platonic
scarecrow 
I spoke of.  That's the short thought.


Ron said:
Relativism is a method of destroying bias assumption 
and prejudice not so much a philosphical view in it's own 
right to camp on.

Matt:
An interesting reconstrual of the elenchus as the origin 
of relativism, and as you elsewhere suggested, 
pragmatism.  But in the end, "relativism" doesn't seem 
like a good name for a method.

Ron said:
Hello Matt, You are certainly more read on the subject of 
Pragmatism than I. It seemed to me based on what I 
read that Pragmatism seemed to come at the proposition 
of value meaning from an objective point of view. 
Perhaps because I read it with eyes already colored by 
 Pirsigs work .To me, Pragmatism didn't venture into the 
justification for the primacy of social moral value just a 
kind of objective asessment of it's existence and part it 
plays in forming value judgements.

Matt:
I don't mean this as a slap, but given your overt 
proclivities to wikipedia, part of me can't help but think 
that in the end that might start holding you back.  I'm not 
sure what other kinds of material you like to explore, but 
I don't think wikipedia, and many free internet resources, 
should be used for much more than aides de memoire.

I'm not even sure how to evaluate a statement like 
"Pragmatism seemed to come at the proposition of value 
meaning from an objective point of view."  Too many of 
the terms are in flux for pragmatists, Pirsigian or 
otherwise, and none of the phrases really jive with the 
kinds of thing I understand about pragmatism.

Matt
 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
Windows 7: It works the way you want. Learn more.
http://www.microsoft.com/Windows/windows-7/default.aspx?ocid=PID24727::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WWL_WIN_evergreen:112009v2