[MD] DMB and Me

[John Carl]

dmb and dmber,

well... at least this demonstrates it's not just me.  He treats everyone
this way.




On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 9:43 AM, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com>wrote:

>
> 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
> 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
>