[MD] DMB and Me

[david buchanan]

Steve said to Matt:
With regard to (1) I think there is a lot of support in the texts for a yin-yang sort of relationship with dynamic-static rather than separate universes, but there is probably much to point to in the texts to support a dichotomy such as the mystical Pirsig that DMB loves most.

dmb says:

Separate universes? Quite the opposite. I've been making a case that Matt is leaving half the "universe" out. He's rejecting one half of a distinction, which means rejecting one half of Pirsig's "universe". And as I keep saying, this mystical term Quality, is the centerpiece of Pirsig's work. It's a bit disingenuous to pretend it's just some thing "dmb loves most", don't you think? 

Seriously, don't you think it's unfair to construe this emphasis on Quality as some kind of personal quirk on my part? Tell me what you think, Steve. Can a reasonable person deny the centrality of Quality in the Metaphysics of Quality?
 
Steve said to Matt:

With regard to (2), the paintings in a gallery bit supports a suggestion for a better distinction/dichotomy over an enforced distinction/dichotomy about the way things really are. DMB seems to be on the heavy-handed side of the issue, enforcing a dichotomy between those who correctly subscribe to radical empiricism and those who just don't get it and reject it. His dichotomy includes the notion of separate universes of thought for "experience" philosophers and "language" philosophers, whereas you see a difference between the two, yet also see the two as frequently also doing the same sorts of things from their different sides of the distinction. You see Putnamesque entanglement and a useful distinction while DMB sees a Kantian dichotomy. The question remains, who is being more Pirsigian? 



dmb says:

This framing is ridiculously convoluted. I'm not enforcing a dichotomy, metaphysical, Platonic, Kantian or otherwise. I'm just saying that Matt is confused. There's difference between radical empiricism and traditional empiricism but he mistakenly dismisses the former based on a critique of the latter and has misconceived Pirsig's central term as a result. These two forms empiricism, and the distinction between them, exist in the same "universe". 

Look, Matt admits that he's no James scholar and he'll tell you that he's not interested enough to spend time on it. That's fair. That's fine. But this admission is wildly at odds with the assertion that he can find no use for this in his conceptual arrangements. How can one determine the usefulness of a concept unless it is first understood? To dispute or reject an idea, you first have to know what it means. How can a guy admit that he's not sure what it means and then also declare he has no use for it? 


On a slightly different note, and going with the paint gallery analogy, I'm not insisting that Pirsig's central terms reflect the way things really are. I'm just saying that the MOQ "really" does have central terms and that evacuating them doesn't work. I'm not saying that Pirsig's painting is the only true painting. I'm just saying that Matt is missing something very important about Pirsig's painting. I'm saying the MOQ (Pirsig's painting) is meaningless without Quality. Matt says that may be so for Pirsig but Quality is still meaningless in his own painting nonetheless. I think that's a subtle way of changing the subject from the MOQ to Matt. With all due respect, Matt's painting is not my concern. I'm talking about Matt's understanding of the MOQ and about the MOQ as I understand it because interpreters are necessary but it's not about me or Matt. As far as I'm concerned, it's about the MOQ. 


Whew! If it seems like I'm "enforcing" this distinction in a heavy-handed way it's probably just because I feel so frustrated. This whole conversation seems to be predicated on the belief that it's perfectly legitimate to leave Quality out of the MOQ. I think that is just so obviously wrong that it kinda freaks me out that I have to explain it to anyone, let alone try to convince anyone that it's wrong.


You don't even have know anything to see that, you know? Such a move is just simple subtraction. The metaphysics of X, minus X, is the metaphysics of zero. It doesn't even matter what "X" is. 





 








 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail is redefining busy with tools for the New Busy. Get more from your inbox.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID27925::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:032010_2