[MD] Rorty and Mysticism

[david buchanan]

Steve, Matt, a small point....


Matt said to dmb:

Seriously?  You think Steve will be a bad math teacher and I'll teach composition poorly because we don't really understand why we need to describe one kind of experience as "direct" or "pure" or "pre-intellectual"?

dmb says:
I don't know what level Steve teaches, but I can tell you that the basic distinction between empiricists and rationalists does have its counterpart in any discipline. Or so it seems. My brother-in-law (and good friend) is a professor of economic at UC San Diego and he explained to me that there are two distinct camps with respect to mathematical models. And he launched into that explanation after I told him about the way James divides philosophers into two basic temperaments. He recognized it right away. We thought that was pretty cool, the way our very different domains seemed to display the same divide. 

Anyway, if Steve teaches math at the college level this rivalry is very likely have a great deal of relevance. Like James, Pirsig is very much about fusing both camps as part of the effort to expand rationality. The central concept of Quality is what you need to see how he's getting the classic (math) and the romantic (literature) to work together. Quality is what Art, science and religion all have as a common starting point. If you're teaching anything at the college level or beyond, this picture is going to be relevant to your thinking. Or so I hope.

But hey, I'm just saying there is no good reason why the main idea should elude either of you. It's just a mix up. Would you like to hear about it?