[MD] Philosophy and Abstraction

[Matt Kundert]

Matt said:
You say, for example, it's a "translation problem," but I don't have a 
sense for the specifics of the particular translation problem. ... I 
don't know what your exact problem is, so how I can defend any 
particular position exactly?

DMB said:
Well, I'm asking you to look at some very specific ideas when 
translating guys like Sellars because he uses terms like 
"pre-conceptual" to mean something very different from the meaning 
intended by James or Pirsig.  ...

Matt:
Everything you said in those first three paragraphs is 1) well-stated 
and all something I think I can agree with and 2) what I've been 
trying to take as our point of agreement to move to a next phase.  
It's unclear to me why the last few posts of yours have been trying 
to impress upon me that James and Pirsig were using a notion of 
"pre-conceptual" that was not part of the Myth of the Given because 
I'm trying to say, "Yes, okay, I agree...now what?"

Matt said:
Hey, you smell scientific materialism all over analytic philosophy.  I 
smell Platonism over a lot of the formulations of mysticism.  Both of 
us want to say that, for the most part, those smells are wafting from 
adjacent compartments to the ones we're actually interested in.

DMB said:
I don't think that's fair. I only described Sellars and Rorty using the 
terms they use for themselves and those labels don't just "smell" 
like scientific materialism, they declare it quite openly. (Verbal 
behaviorism, non-reductive physicalism, eliminative materialism are 
terms they use. Again, these are not my cups of tea and I think 
that's a very different perspective but it's not slanderous to point 
this out.)

Matt:
I'm not sure why you're attributing a slander charge to me, but I 
don't think what I said is unfair at all.  You have, indeed, described 
Sellars and Rorty with isms they used, but what you haven't done is 
told me what you think they mean.  You've just used them to create 
an aura that you are implying should be repugnant to Pirsigians.  
You're implying that "verbal behaviorism," "non-reductive 
physicalism," and "eliminative materialism" can all be assimilated to 
"scientific materialism."  I think if one looked beyond the mere terms 
(something you've asked me to do for "pure," "direct," etc.), this 
isn't the case, at least not in any disagreeable sense of "scientific 
materialism."

DMB said:
Do you really think of these differences as "elusive smells"?

Matt:
Yes, until I'm given more than a list of terms to be given a sniff test.  
I would need to know specifically what the problem is with, e.g., 
"non-reductive physicalism" as adumbrated in the essay of the same 
name.

Matt