[MD] To Matt from A Short History of Decay

[MarshaV]

On Jul 13, 2010, at 6:58 PM, Matt Kundert wrote:

> 
> 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.

Hi Matt,

I thought all along that you were not writing for a caring 
reader.  That's been my frustration, but I understand it 
completely.  It is not always safe to care on this list.   


Marsha  


> 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
> 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/md/archives.html


 
___