[MD] DMB and Me

[david buchanan]

Matt, Steve, Andre and all interested moqers:

Andre seems to understand and I appreciate the help. Hopefully, this post will clear up some misunderstandings. Steve has made a series of clear and succinct remarks that lend themselves to this task. 



Steve said:
I agree that the point of saying "the fundamental nature of reality is outside of language" is to insist that we give up on trying to nail it down with words. ... Matt was actually the first to say that there may be "no difference" which is when you got all upset with him. Your original denial of "no difference" is what got this whole thing rolling.

dmb says:

There are two different cases being conflated here. This particular agreement (that you can't nail it down with words) does not resolve the larger issue. In fact, this agreed upon point is the centerpiece of Matt's argument against the usefulness of DQ. You know, because DQ is the contentious half of the DQ/sq distinction and that's what got this rolling. Matt doesn't see the difference between Pirsig and Rorty, between the empirical approach and the linguistic approach. I'm trying to show what the difference is and why it matters. Talking about radical empiricism and the role of DQ or pure experience in Pirsig's empiricism is a direct way of talking about their biggest and most important differences. 

Steve said:
My understanding is that your "radical empiricism approach" and Matt's "philosophy of language approach" are both forms of anti-Platonism.

dmb says:

Yes. I think Pirsig and Rorty are both anti-Platonists. But that only means they share a common enemy. I've been trying to explain how the anti-Platonism of Rorty and Fish and friends differs from radical empiricism, despite this common enemy. I've also been trying to explain how and where Matt is using Rorty's anti-Platonism against Pirsig's anti-Platonism, how a misunderstanding of radical empiricism leads to rejecting the rejection. Against Pirsig's anti-Platonism, Matt raises the specter of Platonism. So I'm trying to get you to understand radical empiricism to show how and why that criticism can't be applied to the claims radical empiricism. 


Steve continued:
You keep taking Matt's lack of interest in talking about radical empiricism as an attack on radical empiricism. It's not. And since you think he is attacking radical empiricism, you think he must be supporting Platonism. He's not. Matt is just saying that he is doing the anti-Platonist thing in a different way from you. You seem to be insisting that there is just one way to do anti-Platonism: radical empiricism.


dmb says:

Every statement about my thoughts is a misunderstanding. I don't think Matt is attacking RE. I DO think he's dismissing it, glossing over it as unimportant. I don't think he's supporting Platonism. I DO think he's misapplying his anti-Platonism to things he doesn't properly understand. I don't think there is only one way to do anti-Platonism. I DO think there is at least one that way that you can NOT do the MOQ. Without "Quality", the MOQ is meaningless and that's why I object to Matt's dismissals and glossings over. That's what he's leaving out.


Steve said:
In your view, if Matt wants to be an anti-Platonist but doesn't want to do radical empiricism, then he must not understand radical empiricism. Matt is willing to grant that he may not understand radical empiricism, but he thinks that even if he understood it, he still wouldn't necesarily want to use it since he already has ways of doing anti-Platonism. But you keep insisting that either he does radical empiricism or he is a Platonist in your book. Then Matt just shrugs and walks away. He knows that he is not a Platonist, but he also knows that you are no more interested in understanding his sort of anti-Platonism as he is in better understanding your radical empiricism.


dmb says:

I guess you're referring to the case I made with respect to the battle between Plato and the Sophists? It seems to me that you're bypassing and misunderstanding the point and purpose of that case the case I made with respect to the SOM assumptions of the post-positivists, of Matt's neopragmatic heroes. In other words, I'm not concerned about the fact that Matt has other ways to be an anti-Platonist. I'm not saying you have to be a radical empiricist to be an anti-Platonist. The battle between Plato and the Sophists is relevant to a proper understanding of the differences between radical empiricism and Matt's vocabulary-vocabulary. I'm trying to show how the linguistic approach is not just different from radical empiricism, it pushes back against the main thrust of radical empiricism. See, it's not about whether or not he can have his and I can have mine. It's about the compatibility of those two approaches. Matt see's no important difference and I'm trying to show how they are opposed in a very crucial way. Matt thinks they both serve the same purpose, oppose Plato for the same reasons and either one will get you there. Not so. He's leaving out the same thing that Plato left out. The dynamic. If all you have of reality is reality under a description, then all you have is static reality, the uncontentious half of the DQ/sq distinction. I'm saying his form of anti-Platonism amounts to anti-Pirsigism. It's the latter that concerns me. If this were anti-Platonism.org or Rorty.org it would be more reasonable to make a case that DQ or pure experience is something we can take or leave. But this is MOQ.org, of course, and so I'm only concerned with Matt's take on this to the extent that it cuts the heart of the MOQ.



Steve said:
I understand that you are comfortable with the paradox, but can you imagine that someone else could be less comfortable with paradox and choose not to say paradoxical things when it can be avoided? Do you think paradoxes are unavoidable? Perhaps they are sometimes. But what if someone has a way of doing the anti-Platonism without saying things that contradict themselves? What if that person is not as comfortable with paradox as you are? Wouldn't it make sense for that person to choose a different way of doing anti-Platonism if he can do so without paradox?

dmb says:
The DQ/sq distinction and the MOQ itself is a paradox. The question is not whether or not Matt can do his anti-Platonism in a way that avoids paradoxes. The question is whether or not Matt can avoid the MOQ's paradoxical nature by glossing over the mysticism, by leaving out the Quality. In other words, if we want to discuss the MOQ, then no, absolutely not. We can't avoid paradox. 


Steve said:
... you have missed the actual question that was asked. You haven't addressed  "the preference not to speak in certain terms." You keep conflating this preference with an attack on radical empiricism. Matt is not attacking radical empiricism. There is just your attack on Matt's not doing radical empiricism.


dmb says:
I've been avoiding that one to some extent but not entirely. You might remember that I recently objected to the notion that this is a matter of personal preference and you might remember a week or two ago I objected (and you agreed) to the kind of talk that can be taken to mean that truth hinges on our whims. I've said relatively little about this aspect of Matt's case because I'm trying to keep things from getting over-heated. 

First, let me object on the grounds that this assertion begs the question. In terms of that recent pithy slogan, the dispute pits the empirical against the linguistic. By saying that it is really just a matter of preferring to speak in certain terms, you're assuming the very thing in dispute. You're just asserting the linguistic against the empirical as if the dispute had already been settled and empiricism lost.
 But the other objection is more viscerally felt. I have nothing but contempt for that kind of talk. MY vocabularies. MY interests. MY purposes. MY projects. MY preferred ways of talking. That doesn't sound like pragmatism at all. That just sounds like solipsistic narcissism. Don't get me wrong, I think there is a valid pragmatic assertion buried down in there somewhere but it's being misused terribly, I think, in the course of these conversations. Not only is it used to beg the question, it's also used to change the subject and as an evasion tactic in general. I accuse Matt of confusion and error and he says we should drop the vocabulary of confusion and error. That's way too convenient to be believed. 

When this idea of purposes and interests and vocabularies is invoked, I think to myself, "but we're talking about Pirsig's central terms. That's the vocabulary of concern. But we're discussing the MOQ at MOQ.org. That's the purpose. That's the project. That's the interest we have in common and that common interest constitutes the topic of the conversation." And so that kind of talk only seems to serve one purpose; evasion. 

Steve said:
Are you intersted in how anti-Platonism can be done without radical empiricism?  If so, Matt would have a lot to teach you. If not, then why get on Matt's case?

dmb says:

Well, no. I'm not interested in anti-Platonism per se. But since you mentioned it, let me remind you that I've been going out on my own to investigate the names and slogans Matt uses to make his case and I've been bringing them back into the discussion as a way to talk to Matt in his own terms. But again, this is not Rorty.org. I only do this because Matt's Rortyism pushes back against the main thrust of Pirsigism and I want to show him how and ways that don't make him do the work. I'm bringing both sides to the table as best I can because, as Matt admits, he is not able to articulate these things and he's busy. This work overlaps with the things I need to do for school anyway, so I don't mind. But give me a little credit, will you? I've been quoting and discussing Matt's intellectual heroes as part of my case, but neither of you are responding to it and are instead asking why I'm on Matt's case. But that stuff is part of the answer that question. Like I keep saying, I'm on Matt's case because he's dismissing the usefulness of DQ at MOQ.org. I think this is a compelling and obvious reason to take issue with Matt and in fact I'm shocked that this even needs to be explained. How could you possibly be mystified by this stance and on what basis could you object?

That's the question you haven't answered, you know? Can a reasonable person maintain that the MOQ is just fine without "Quality"?



Steve said:
I'm not rejecting all "fundamental nature" talk. I'm just choosing not to do it because of fear that it could be taken in the wrong way as I tried to explain. I know that it is meant to be anti-Platonism and I'm fine with you saying "the fundamental nature of reality is outside of language," because I know you mean it as anti-Platonism. It just not a phrase that I would use in certain circumstances. I might instead choose to say other things to do anti-Platonism--things that may avoid the paradox that you say you are comfortable with--or choose to say nothing at all.

dmb says:

Again, these circumstances are the certain circumstances that concern us. This concern to avoid "fundamental nature" talk makes sense in some other context, in some other conversation. To use that concern to dictate the terms of our debate only looks like evasion. In this case, the "fundamental nature" talk is only the subject matter. It's only the topic and it's only the very thing in dispute. Oh, yes, by all means let's not talk about that. It might be seen as Platonism! You see what I mean? It's not really an argument. You admit agreement but then want to shut down the very thing we're talking about for reasons having to do with personal comfort levels and for reasons that might obtain in some other time and place. If that's anything more than a bogus evasion, then there is something big missing from the argument because I just don't see it.



Steve said:

Consider also that acording to Pirsig, James's himself saw his radical empiricism as independent of his pragmatism, so if James's pragmatism is anti-Platonist, then anti-Platonism can be done without radical empiricism.



dmb says:

If I was saying there is only one way to be anti-Platonic you'd have a good point. But I didn't say that and I don't think it's true either. Also, I don't care about other ways to be anti-Platonic. I'm not taking a position one way or the other because that question is completely irrelevant to my concerns. The only reason it came up is because Matt thinks anti-Platonism is main the thing. That's how he comes to the conclusion that "Quality" is something one can take or leave. You and he are saying one can be anti-Platonic without radical empiricism. I know that. It's just that I don't care and it's not relevant to whether or not you can have Pirsig without radical empiricism. It's about radical empiricism because Pirsig equates his central term with the central term in radical empiricism, because Pirsig identifies his own DQ/sq distinction with the distinctions James made. To say he identifies them is to say they are identical. 

Again, this is about taking the Quality out of the MOQ. How could anyone object to that?

Why do I get so much grief for defending the positions explicitly stated in the books we're here to discuss? Matt is a Rorty fan who dismisses Pirsig central idea. How do you figure he is the offended party? Reminds of the situation with theism. Somehow, defending the MOQ's stance on that makes me the bad guy too. I think that's backwards. In fact, that reminds me of a good analogy. It seems reasonable to take an atheistic or even anti-theistic stance here because that reflects the content of the MOQ. But suppose I went down to the local church next sunday and took an anti-theistic stance there? What would happen if I did that? There'd be some disagreements. Maybe even heated arguments. That's what any sane person would expect, right? So what if I not only went to church to express my anti-theism but what if I was also offended by the disagreements that followed and berated them for daring to argue back. Wouldn't you think I was being unreasonable? 

That's how I see it. Given the context, I have every right to mount a defense of Pirsig and Matt has no right to be offended by it. 


 













 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft’s powerful SPAM protection.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/210850552/direct/01/