[MD] DMB and Rorty

[Gareth Evans]

Matt said:
Oh, and this is interesting, too: your frame for dialogue was
Socrates.  This really has nothing to do with your point about
real dialogue, but two good questions to ask about Plato's
Dialogues are 1) Did Socrates really care what his interlocutors
meant? (or the flipside, did the interlocutors really add
anything to the dialogues, particularly later ones, like
Glaucon's reduction to repeating "okay" and "yes" throughout
much of The Republic) and 2) Did Socrates really mean what
he said (given the well-established phenomena of irony in the
dialogues)?
Wiki says about deconstruction:
Deconstruction generally attempts to demonstrate that any text is not a
discrete whole but contains several irreconcilable and contradictory
meanings; that any text therefore has more than one interpretation; that the
text itself links these interpretations inextricably; that the
incompatibility of these interpretations is irreducible; and thus that an
interpretative reading cannot go beyond a certain point.
Since we have not even any writing by Socrates and everything is at least
second generation text by those who might have known him, it is no wonder
that there are differences of opinion.
1) In my opinion Socrates already knew, but he did care about what it is to
be human(quality of life)
2)In my opinion he is one with Wittgenstein. you go through the experience,
put that ladder away and go on to another experience(see above).
In this,Derrida is one with Pirsig, once you write down your definition you
are necessarily open to counterattack. Come on guys let's talk(give me a
link to the Bo/DMB/Matt trinity mission statement).
In my opinion the text means what it says but what I want to learn is what
is in the mind of the other.


On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 8:31 PM, Matt Kundert
<pirsigaffliction at hotmail.com>wrote:

>
> Hi Gareth,
>
> Gareth said:
> In my opinion, as the dialogue continues it is possible to
> better understand the other. But for this to happen you
> must say what you mean and occasionally ask(as does
> Socrates) if your understanding of what the other said is
> what the other meant. If both participants are honest then
> this would be a dynamic process. And it is why I am
> here(and I think I will stay for a while).
>
> Matt:
> Well said.  As a dialogue continues, it should be possible to
> better understand the other.  And a wonderful tool in that
> department is, definitely, stopping and asking, "Is that what
> you meant?"
>
> Sadly, some of us are too full of our own powers of
> deduction to do that.  Like me, for one.  And sometimes,
> there's too much ill-will between participants--it's not about
> honesty or sincerity always, just about willingness to shed
> one's own perspective long enough to try and get the hang
> of someone else's.
>
> But willingness to do that is circumscribed by a number of
> other factors.  Take Bo--few who have been at the MD for
> a long time want to shed there own perspectives to dig in
> deep to Bo's point of view anymore because they feel
> they've spent enough time trying to do it already.  That's
> why that conversation is a dry well for many (not all).
> Sometimes, you just make that personal choice, where you
> ignore a point of view, instead of constantly talking about
> it.  Or take DMB and I--we each think we have a pretty
> good handle on the other person's perspective (sort of--each
> of us confesses at odd intervals that we have no idea what
> the other is talking about: how much of this is rhetorical,
> nobody knows), and that what the other says about our own
> perspective is pretty well screwed up beyond belief, so we
> just kinda' circle around, lookin' bug-eyed and gesticulating
> at each other, completely astonished as to how this
> happened.  And neither one of us really feels the need to
> drop everything, dig in, and take what amounts to a primer
> course in Understanding DMB/Matt.  It just doesn't seem
> worth it to either one of us.  So we spend our time jockeying
> for the moral high ground instead.
>
> Oh, and this is interesting, too: your frame for dialogue was
> Socrates.  This really has nothing to do with your point about
> real dialogue, but two good questions to ask about Plato's
> Dialogues are 1) Did Socrates really care what his interlocutors
> meant? (or the flipside, did the interlocutors really add
> anything to the dialogues, particularly later ones, like
> Glaucon's reduction to repeating "okay" and "yes" throughout
> much of The Republic) and 2) Did Socrates really mean what
> he said (given the well-established phenomena of irony in the
> dialogues)?
>
> Matt
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection.
> http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/210850553/direct/01/
> 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
>