[MD] DMB and Me

[david buchanan]

DMB said to Matt:

How much time have you spent explaining how you don't have time to explain anything? And may I remind you what it is you don't have time to explain? Your views. The reasons for dismissing Pirsig's central term. That's what you can't be bothered to do here at MOQ.org.



Matt replied:

First question--how much time I've spent explaining my lack of time: way too much, let me tell you, but it's easy time, not the more arduous time it takes to say something new and substantive.  (I have high standards, I guess.) ... Second rhetorical question--what I don't have time for: "[my] views" That's tough, because I haven't been asked for an honest explanation of my views. Certainly not an easy one.  Because, honestly, I don't have a long, expository articulation of my views, aside from stuff on my bloggy-dingy.  Well-defined, catechisms of views is largely not what amateur philosophy is about, hence the shift from ZMM to Lila. ... How can we know so much about me if I'm so mysterious and will never explain myself?  Seems weird. ... Am I being elusive?  Allusive?  Why would somebody care if I was?  Is my opinion important somehow?




dmb says:

Yes, you are both elusive and allusive but what bothers me most is that you are evasive. 

The fact is, radical empiricism is already in the books we're here to discuss and understanding the position does not require any reading or thinking beyond ZAMM and Lila. Further, I have been spoon feeding both sides of the argument so that the only thing you have to do is read the posts you're responding to anyway. The only difference would be that you're responses would be directed at the dealing with the issues rather than evading them.
Nope. That's just not plausible.
Of course, there is a real reason why you always respond with evasions instead of substantial answers. There is a big black hole that exists where your answers should be. What's missing is support for your own position, support for your own expressed views. Would it really kill you to attempt a sincere and intellectually responsible consideration of the case I've presented? Wouldn't it be easier than all this tap dancing? Does the prospect of learning something about the difference between Rorty and Pirsig somehow threaten something you NEED to believe? Your resistance these ideas seems quite unfounded, irrational and even fanatical. 

You won't believe it anyway and least of all from me. But I'm telling you that I can see what you're doing. I can see right where you go wrong. I'm trying to show you how and why Rorty's critique of empiricism is irrelevant to the MOQ. I would have thought that you'd be happy to discuss your own position, to defend your own views. That seems to be your favorite topic and you're always happy to direct MOQers to your blog, which is nothing but. 

I guess the real reason is that you think a substantial conversation with me about this topic would be embarrassing for you. It might turn out that I actually have a good point here and that notion is just a nightmare for you. That's why you get angry instead of getting serious. That's why you demand that I treat with with kid gloves and why you disapprove of the rhetoric of confusion and error.  

But these evasions do not save your pride at all. All I ever wanted was a straight answer but these constant evasions only make you look intellectually irresponsible and intellectually dishonest. Seems you dislike me for making you do that, even though that's always the last thing I actually want you to do. 

I think straight answers are just a matter of common courtesy in any situation. But more so in a situation like this. Here, it's like the lowest minimum standard. But the most I can get out of you is an allusion to an irrelevant answer. Your recent reference to the third dogma of empiricism, for example. There you did not bother to explain what the third dogma is or why Davidson opposes it and sure enough, as has been the case every time I've looked into your allusions, it turns out this critique was directed against traditional empiricism and is simply not relevant to the claims of radical empiricism.

Every single time, Matt. You're making the same basic mistake over and over. I can see how you're doing it. I can see how it's very easy to do. Pros do it. But apparently, in your mind, being corrected is the second worst thing that could ever happen. And the worst thing is being corrected here by me about Rorty.

That's just never gonna happen is it? At this point, even if you did suddenly see it, you'd never give me the satisfaction of admitting that. At this point, you'd die first, huh?



 

  







 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
The New Busy is not the old busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID27925::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:032010_3