[MD] JTB

[Ian Glendinning]

Thanks for responding DMB, a rare treat.

(1) you miss the main point sadly, of the 99% agreement (the "reasons
like these" in this and other current threads), making the single
stated disagreement hard to fathom. Choosing to address only that
aside / comment sadly. (Count how many threads since Christmas where
I've replied with a reference to you, and count which (one) you've
responded too. QED.)

(2) you resort to ad-hominem name-calling and ridicule as is your
wont. I don't "dismiss" anything. I'm selective after years around the
loops .... life's too short etc. (I follow Eagleton's "empty
wheelbarrow" line in not taking sides where choices are provided,
BECAUSE they - the choices - are much more important than that. This
is neither dismissive or equivocal, but a conscious well-read and
well-researched choice to find better ground. Quality.

(3) I do read / have read most of the references quoted by yourself
(and Matt / Steve etc ...) but not all, see (2) above. I do always
read the quotes you actually provide.

(4) Matt has made it clear in the threads that spawned this one, that
he is equally baffled by what you choose to disagree about. The
significance / relevance / reasoning / motivations that is, not the
logic. It was Matt's espousal of the poetry (and not just logic) that
drew my interests in the poetic James quotes I snipped from you. Sigh.

(5) In those Weed quotes I see nothing that adds to the argument here
(about what if any significance there is in a debate between truth and
justification - where I strongly support your line) just some claims
she makes about what Rorty does or does not consider - which I doubt.
I recognize the brands of truth being debated, (clearly I strongly
support the views of James, Pirsig and yourself here on the radical
pragmatic take) but take no lessons from you in why I must dismiss
Rorty or Wittgenstein in the process.

Go fuck yourself, then come back and apologise (or alternatively you
could argue on the content of others arguments instead) :>+
Ian


On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 2:30 PM, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Ian said to dmb:
> ... For reasons like these I fail to see (again) why there is any disagreement between say Matt and DMB and Marsha, other than an attitude / will to disagree. Life's a "metaphorical mosaic" old chum, But don't forget (reify) the metaphor please!
>
>
>
> dmb says:
> Ah, the great equivocator strikes again!
>
> Hopefully, Matt and Steve will see the distinctions that you've failed to see (again). Are you willing to dismiss Laura Weed's paper as the product of mere attitude/will too? I mean, the post you're responding to is an extension of her main thesis. Let me repeat that main thesis for you:
> Laura Weed argues, "that the DEFLATIONIST VIEW of truth in contemporary ANALYTICAL PHILOSOPHY CAN NOT CAPTURE the meaning of truth because it has cut its material too thin in restricting considerations related to truth to very narrowly conceived logical considerations concerning propositions, and by shutting itself off from experience of the emotional and intentional aspects of a lived life. And I have argued," Weed says, "that the socio-historical view of truth expoused by Foucault, RORTY AND OTHER HERMENEUTICAL PHILOSOPHERS CANNOT CAPTURE the meaning of truth because they do not consider the roles of A) stable functions of consciousness, and B) practical interactions with a recalcitrantly existent environment, in their considerations of the nature of truth." (Weed, page 14)
>
> The distinctions at issue in my conversation with Matt and Steve are between three views of truth; the analytical, the hermeneutical and the pragmatic. Those are the three views discussed in Weed's paper, which defends James's theory against the other two views. To suggest that these differences are unreal or unimportant and to dismiss the debate as mere attitude is annoying and unhelpful, to say the least. I think your failure to see why there is a disagreement is just that; your failure. This is not to say that I'm done explaining it or that my efforts so far haven't raised questions but the basic lines have been drawn pretty clearly. There are lots of papers and books about these rival theories so you certainly don't have to take it from me or Weed.
>
> You should do some investigations for yourself, Ian. Then come back and apologize. I'll be holding my breath. :^+
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
>