[MD] To Matt from A Short History of Decay

[Matt Kundert]

Hi Marsha,

Marsha said:
You've written a bit over my head, but I have been 
wondering about the particular versus the general, and 
finding them both to be false.  I'm really kind of stuck in the 
'not this, not that' mode, especially as I interact with my 
own thinking.

Matt:
If you want an insight into my process, I try to write a 
little bit over my own head.  It's nice to get to the point 
where you say just and exactly what you mean, but that 
means your thinking has solidified.  In breaking up the 
iceflows, thinking in stages and rungs on a ladder helps 
you get further than you had imagined when you started.

It's funny that you're wondering about the 
particular/general thing, because its one of the older 
philosophical conundrums and one I'd largely left behind 
thinking about--I'd sided with the "particular" side (picking 
up from Rorty the medieval designation for it, "nominalism").  
But in saying they are both false, two weeks ago I might 
have said, "that's true, but..." and made up some excuse 
for continuing the see-saw by still labeling myself as a 
nominalist.

That was two weeks ago.  Now, after reading Robert 
Brandom's Reason in Philosophy (cover to cover: that's a 
first for me), I think I understand how to better reject 
both sides of the equation.  The very short of it is that 
Brandom suggests that the issues surrounding the 
particular/general distinction are generated by what he 
calls the "classificatory theory of consciousness."  It's 
hard for me to articulate this, but it involves thinking of 
concepts/ideas/words as post-it notes you wipe onto 
previously differentiated kinds.  That means the 
_content_ of thoughts are simply classified by 
concepts/ideas/words, since they were already 
differentiated.  Contrary to that, Brandom suggests that 
the content of thought can only come _with_ 
concepts/ideas/words by the relationship between the 
concepts/ideas/words with each other and the world.  
This means that the particular/general distinction itself 
only comes in a heap after you've become conceptual, 
and that neither can be reduced to the other.  (This 
requires a previous articulation and defense of a 
distinction between sentience and sapience--between 
differentiation-as-sensing and 
differentiation-as-concept-using.  The former we hold 
in common with animals and babies, but only 
language-users have the latter.  And while Brandom has 
no particular desire to denigrate the sensing and feeling 
we have in common with animals, he does want to make it 
more clear what the difference is between the two so as 
to become more clear what each is and their relationships 
to each other.)

Marsha said:
I sense that you have depth, and you are kind, and that 
you hold an important question.  i cannot explain the 
'question' so you are correct not to pay me too much 
mind.

Matt:
Just one important question?  I hope I'm holding more cards 
than that...

Though maybe one important one is enough.

Matt
 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
The New Busy think 9 to 5 is a cute idea. Combine multiple calendars with Hotmail. 
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=multicalendar&ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_5