[MD] Rorty and Mysticism

[david buchanan]

 Matt said:
... I just wish a more sensitive understanding of Rorty's position than you've given in writing before disliking him on the stage of philosophical disagreement.  I specifically mean the understanding you've articulated in your essay in the moq.org Essay Forum, which is the most extended critical treatment you've given him (that I'm aware of). 

dmb says:
Actually, that paper was written for my first class and I find it slightly embarrassing now. I sure hope I've learned some things about Rorty and pragmatism since then. 


Back at the time, Matt said:
"This is a strange choice (though I understand selections of convenience) and I would suggest that 'Texts and Lumps' doesn’t give a very subtle summation of Rorty’s thoughts about truth, nor give you a really good backdrop with which to attack him on this score.  In ORT, 'Solidarity or Objectivity?' and the introduction to the book provide better, more nuanced summaries that might give you better meat to digest, something that looks less flimsy to fight against."

dmb says:
I don't remember what my reply was but I probably told you that "Texts and Lumps" was not a choice at all. That paper was written for a graduate course and that's the text they assigned. (I got an A- on the paper.)



Matt said:
"Specific corrections" don't help, Dave, because we seem to have very different understandings of when we are saying something "correct" about Rorty: ... Because as it stands, in my (apparently unintelligible) estimation, your dislike is based on a less-than-good understanding.

dmb says:
So far, the more I learn, the less I like him. I don't like the analytic tradition in general. It's more a temperament thing than a knowledge thing. It seems that you gleefully embrace things that make me cringe in horror. I seriously doubt that a more subtle reading is going to change that basic reaction.  

Matt commented at the time:

"I think you need to do more work in explicating why you think Rorty has this predication and is not in the business of dissolving, especially given that Rorty describes his whole attitude to the philosophical establishement (i.e. Platonism, SOM) as one of dissolving, making the old problems disappear rather than giving new answers. ...

dmb says:
You and I have discussed this issue many times since then. That predication appeared in an article by Rorty's friend Stanley Fish. I distinctly recall that I made an effort to bring this to your attention because it validated what I was trying to say for a long time. I recall being especially excited about this supportive evidence because Fish is so friendly to Rorty's cause. It was from the "inside" view of Rorty, as you might put it. But I also recall that you were neither moved nor impressed by it.



Matt contined:
 For the only reason why it looks as if the gap is impossible, I would suggest, is because of the stance taken up periodically by all of these philosophers when they are criticizing the tradition: parasitical criticism.  They take the terms their enemy uses and attempt to show how they lead nowhere.  This doesn’t lead you out of the fly-bottle, but it often is useful in convincing your traditional opponents what  problems they have to surmount—and how hard that will be."

dmb says:
I honestly don't know what you mean. It's not an evasion or a denial, I swear. I simply do not comprehend the meaning of these words.

Matt commented at the time:
I would suggest reading Rorty’s ... Because, as it stands, it is patently false to say that Rorty doesn’t exalt the breaker of cultural coherence given his talk about the 'strong poet' (in which he would include everyone from Socrates, Milton, Newton, and Mill)." And--I might add--we now have irrefutable evidence that Rorty includes the mystic in his understanding of "strong poet" (though I have long suggested it).

dmb says:
Okay, but like I said, that paper was limited to Texts and Lumps. I haven't read any of Rorty's "strong poet" since then either and so I'm not sure how it relates his views on intersubjective agreement or the things I was saying about cranks and contrarians. If you'd like to explain why philosophers are called poets and how that's different from a strong poet, I'd be happy to hear it. But I really can't follow what you're saying unless I find out what the key terms mean for Rorty. Those terms are technical jargon developed by Rorty for his own purposes, no? If that's the case, very few MOQers would be able to follow what you're saying. Maybe Steve would, but that's about it. 


Matt said:
... you are wrong in suggesting that I have never offered "specific corrections," for if I'm not mistaken, I sent these comments sometime around March 2007.  (And if I somehow mistakenly never sent it, I'd be glad to now.)

dmb says:
I don't know if you ever sent it or not. It hasn't been ringing any bells. Seems like I would have told you about the lack of choice and so you would have realized the irrelevance of that particular criticism. I don't know, but I'd guess you never did and I don't recall it so I'm not all that wrong to complain about the lack of specific correction.



Matt said:
Why is it so hard for us to converse, Dave?  Is it all my fault?

dmb says:
Yep, all the bad is 100% on you and I'm perfectly innocent in the whole thing. Kidding.
Seriously. It's a temperament thing. We have different taste in philosophy generally and the Rorty vs Pirsig thing reflects that. The analytic school that you quote from most often is just awful, awful stuff in my opinion. It's useful like math is useful but it's so empty and bloodless. My instincts tell me it's just not for me. It's mostly just that. I actively dislike the philosopher you like best and it bugs you. Of course it does. It's like telling a guy that his favorite band sucks. And you're nonchalance about my favorite philosopher bugs me. Of course it does. It's like telling a worried guy that his concerns are unimportant. You can see this basic difference in our writing styles too. Mine grates on you and yours grates on me, regardless of the actual content. Am I right? I think yours is unnecessarily complicated and you think mine is too crude. Is that about right?

dmb said:
 I don't know why you're hanging all this Platonic baggage on radical empiricism.

Matt replied:
"I'll stop when you stop implying it."  How is it implied, one might ask?  By using the rhetoric of "pure experience" and "direct experience."


dmb says:

This is one major glitch and it's not just a matter of taste. I think it is unfair, unwarranted and extremely counterproductive to hang this baggage. And all because of the implications of the rhetoric? Man, I really do not get that. You're giving more weight to the implications of and than you are to the explicit meaning given to these terms. I'm not using the rhetoric of "pure experience" or "direct experience". Those are the terms used by James and Pirsig respectively and I use them to refer to their ideas. Their use not an artistic choice of mine, it's just a direct reference to their ideas. Is that what you mean by calling it the "rhetoric of"? It's not clear what you're doing in using the term "rhetoric" like that? 

Anyway, it's unfair because you know perfectly well that both of them make a strong case AGAINST the baggage you're hanging on their terms. You know perfectly well that direct experience could NOT mean perfect correspondence for Pirsig because he is so explicit about rejecting that theory and adopting an alternative to it. Pure Experience has nothing to do with pure Platonic forms and you know it. James was a psychologist describing a process that happens every day right here on earth. I know that you know that they reject this stuff every bit as much as you or Rorty. And so the baggage hanging thing really pisses me off. It's bogus and it's a major, major disruptor of the conversation. I think this bad really is on you. Not kidding. 
Temperaments aren't likely to change but this baggage thing is quite unnecessary and it's fixable.