[MD] Apologies for Dropped Threads

[ADRIE KINTZIGER]

re , Matt.
I have no real
idea what Dave is thinking of by "strawmen and windmills."  I
thought I had been clear that I have no real argument to press
against James.  The only thing that might come up is if James had
really meant to say that truth can be completely replaced by
justification.  Since I don't really think this about James, though Dave
seemingly does, my beef (and ripostes) are with Dave, not James.

I apologize to Andrie, for I don't think he quite caught the central
disagreement either and I cannot try and discuss it with him, and I
apologize to Jan-Anders for continuing not to understand the
purport of his distinctions that he tried again to explain.

------------------------------
Adrie.

I think you'r a good writer  Matt.And i value your theme's and capabilities
for myself as high-end stuff.

In Europe we have lots of floating immigrants,gypsi's, Roma, etc.
They keep travveling this European country's without settling down , ever.
It is what alienates them from the rest of other cultures,other
communities,they
have their own laws,unwritten, their own moral code's, unspoken of to others
(all others are called outsiders), they have now right to know.

This, as a model within a model in Europe,generates a situation much alike
the alienated communities in the US like the Mormons and others.


So, some time ago you were telling a story about you and your girlfriend
driving the car on the highway to San Diego, coming aside of a place with
mormons around, you told us about a conversation, between you and your
girlfriend about "let kill some chomo's' on our way (said by your
girlfriend.)

Anyway , to keep saving on my typing i condesed it a little bit ,but i think
you will remember it.

It relates us in this sense, reading all your stuff, converstations and
especially
from irl derived expierience like this(you are a good narrator), reading all
this
i sometimes thik about it whilst driving my cycle against the wind.
It keeps my mind going on, like the contents.

I often drive aside a Roma-gypsi trailer park, and this is a comparable
situation
they live in , like you described, depicted.
So it always make me think of your story, and i'm wondering myself,taking
your girlfriends words in mind,...do i have to see this aliens as chomo's?
are they?

I also read all the stuff on your website, i followed the thread with Steve
and David, i looked back in all related conversations.

My opinion about Steve having the right opinion, in an analythikal line of
reasoning, and you having the correct line in an inductive reasoning, and
about
David on top of the pyramid because he was making the correct balance
between the two,using them at the same time altogether, i have to maintain.
I think its a very straight conclusion.

To come back on what you were saying about me missing the point in the
discussionline between you and David, hm, i agree i stayed away from
answering the mainquestion you are projecting towards David.

This is not , however to avoid stepping into a conflict that arose in your
earlier conversations about Rorty, or the unwillingness of David to step in
Rorty's models on demand.

One of the sentences i reflected,i remember , was that i tought it stayed a
good idea of David not to let himself deviate away from his fields of
expertise.
The reason i'm staying away from Rorty, honestly, i did not read him.

So i'm not missing the point,i cannot see this point for myself.



--
Something else now.
I do not agree upon your conclusion that pirsig wrote something that belongs
in the 18th century.

I totally disagree.
Quality is timeless, dynamics are timeless value's,statics are timeless,and
this is the main engine,the red line in his work.
Using semantics/derived from ancient material , studying old sciences
sometimes generates a look and feel of old leather, the sence of ancient
roses...._underscoring_the ancient roses_will_not_make_
them_lesser_blooming.


In conclusion,my synthesis of your work allows me to see that you are a good
writer.period.
You will never hear me say, that you are of lesser value then Mr Buchanan.
Or vice_versa-

My relation with Mr Buchanan will not restrain me from interacting with you,
or vice_versa

But the conflict you like to resolve with David, is yours and his.I am no
part in it.

If you however insist on my opinion in this.....
hmm,....and this is about my only critique on you, and i hope it will be
seen as
building-up critique.----
I think your only problem along this line is to be derived from lack of
inspiration
from your side.
IMHO.

You'r capable of writing about the secrets of the urubamba-river, the
Maya's,
Europe, anthropology,science,Polynesia, Easter Island, Clipperton,the
Library of congres,.....
Poison dart frogs, Mirv's,DNA_RNA, etc , pimp up your ride, Matt, move on,
you rock and have to move in the field of writing, halting at a conflict is
infinite regress.
Adrie












2011/1/4 Matt Kundert <pirsigaffliction at hotmail.com>

>
> This is just a central statement of apology that I'm unable to pick up
> any of the hanging threads of conversation I left last year (or last
> month, or ten days ago, depending on perspective).  I perused what
> I could, but at the very beginning of the new threads that Dave began
> to continue the main conversations about truth, I couldn't get past my
> incomprehension of the same thing that Steve and I haven't been
> able to understand about what the disagreement is.  And Steve has
> picked up on the same thoughts I had when skipping through, so I
> don't really have anything to add to the conversation, nor with the
> school year starting and a syllabus to design do I have time.
>
> Dave quoted a lot of stuff from other people, and said somewhat
> rightly that to say that he doesn't understand Rorty is to say that all
> those people he's quoting huge blocks of text from divorced from
> their situations in the original essays don't understand Rorty.  That's
> true: that'd be my conclusion for someone that continues to treat
> "mere conversation" as a negative (as Steve has already
> emphasized).  This is one reason why I encouraged Dave throughout
> December to read something of Rorty and talk to me about that, not
> Seigfried or Weed, or even the article by Ramberg.
>
> When Dave says (and Ian agrees with), "I think James is saying that
> justified beliefs are all we mean by the word truth," I can't get past
> the riposte that Steve supplied that we were already using before I
> left, roughly: how do you reformulate, then, the clear and
> perspicuous meaning of the English sentences: "what you say might
> be justified, but it might not be true" or "what you say might be true,
> but you've presented no justification for thinking so."  This Steve has
> supplied clearly as the existence of, on the JTB formula of knowledge,
> "justified beliefs" and "true beliefs" respectively.  The request has
> been for an account of what those two things are if you collapse
> justification and truth into a single heap.  If one was supplied by
> anyone, I apologize for not catching it.  I have not, nor will have, the
> time to give good thought to the extensive extensions of the
> conversation that went on past me.  It's too hard to play catch up
> with something like that, as anyone knows whose left a movie
> midway through to relieve their bowels.
>
> I apologize to Ian, for I still never really caught what he thought his
> impact on the conversation was (though he gets my kudos for
> reading everything carefully).  I end up agreeing with Dave in
> thinking that Ian didn't quite catch the central gist of disagreement,
> and at the same time, I apologize to Dave for not seeing the
> distinctions that Ian apparently also didn't see.  That's how much
> confusion I perceive in the conversation, and I apologize generally
> for whatever part I played in accidentally obfuscating my position.
> Because Dave continues to think that "Matt and Steve seem to think
> these strawmen and windmils can be pressed against James," but
> I thought we'd gotten beyond that.  Because other than the
> misperception about Rorty's critique of Platonism, I have no real
> idea what Dave is thinking of by "strawmen and windmills."  I
> thought I had been clear that I have no real argument to press
> against James.  The only thing that might come up is if James had
> really meant to say that truth can be completely replaced by
> justification.  Since I don't really think this about James, though Dave
> seemingly does, my beef (and ripostes) are with Dave, not James.
>
> I apologize to Andrie, for I don't think he quite caught the central
> disagreement either and I cannot try and discuss it with him, and I
> apologize to Jan-Anders for continuing not to understand the
> purport of his distinctions that he tried again to explain.
>
> I apologize to Steve for not being able to better applaud what a
> good answer to the "mere conversation" slogan this is: "Of course
> conversation is not excluded from experience, but what you fail to
> get is that nothing is excluded from conversation."  What's great
> about this is that it catches exactly how the two, conversation and
> experience, are inverses of each other.  Just as part of our
> experience is conversation (so, experience-as-master-concept
> includes it), so can conversation be _about_ anything (which this
> articulates nicely about conversation-as-master-concept).  One of
> the lovely paradoxes that the mystic traditions continue to
> wonderfully exemplify is that, even if you can't ultimately talk about
> the One, you can still talk about the One.
>
> And finally I apologize to John for not being able to talk to him
> about the relationship between Wilfrid Sellars (my Sellars) and his
> father, Roy Wood Sellars (his Sellars).  He is right to think that
> there's something close about what he read and what I've been
> saying about psychological nominalism.  From what I read of what
> John provided, dad's "ontological nominalism" is very close, and
> we can only imagine shaped the later Sellars' version.  If I'm not
> mistaken, however, Roy Wood identified as a realist, and at that
> time it meant that he was in opposition to idealism (which most
> realists included pragmatism in, rightly or wrongly).  Wilfrid is a
> movement, on that scale of the conversation, towards
> idealism-cum-pragmatism, though he too did not quite see how
> much (which is why Dave can get mileage out of calling him
> scientistic: because Wilfrid did have some residual scientism).  So,
> what John is seeing, from his perch as a committed Roycean, is
> how a lot of Royce's absolute idealism is better seen as a
> prefiguration of the conceptual pragmatism (perhaps John would
> wish to put that the other way around, though I wouldn't) we see
> at the other end of the trail of realist-analytics that opposed
> idealism at the beginning of the 20th century.
>
> Matt
>
> 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
>



-- 
parser