[MD] Taking words Seriously

[Matt Kundert]

Hey Ron,

Ron said:
And I think that speaks to the sort of style and literary backround you 
posess as well as your approach to Philosophy, which I find unique in 
the way of it having a living element of inquiry to tease out a 
Philosophic topic of conversation. Often academically it's not the usual 
course but thats not to say "thats not how philosophy is done" it just 
to say that it's an unusual style of Philosophic conversation that 
doesent necessarily defend a particular point of view. Which is often 
the case in dialectical fashion here.

Matt:
Hmm.  I guess I never thought of my "methodology" as unusual, but 
rather as the necessary background to reason-giving discourse.  
That, engaging with someone else's views is, quite as an extension 
of the metaphor itself being used, worming one's way into the other 
person's head to _view_ the world as they do.  Because it's not that 
I don't have a particular point of view to defend, it's that there's no 
point in assuming that everyone on the other side of your eyes is an 
enemy at the gates that must be repelled.  Why not figure out if they 
_should_ be repelled or not?  To change metaphors, if we think of 
every individualist philosopher--Pirsig's kind of philosopher, the one 
who figures out what _they_ think first--as speaking their own, 
unique language, then this does not isolate every philosopher from 
every other any more than the English are isolated from the French.  
What do people speaking different languages do when they meet?  
Do they assume the other is stupid for not knowing the correct 
language (i.e. one's own)?  Of course not.  They work their way 
toward mutual communication, which is basically becoming bilingual.  
And then they start rejecting each other's gods and idols if it comes 
to that.  This is what I teach my students, and I think it's pretty 
standard amongst college educationists, even if not as explicitly 
thought about in these particular terms.  All you hear about from 
college instructors these days is "critical thinking."  That's what this 
is, the pre-stage of critical analysis.  For you can't pull apart what 
you can't put together first.

As I see it, great thinkers are worlds unto themselves in their 
writings, and knowing your way around them is knowing the hidden 
roads that connect those worlds, like worm holes.  Or to vary to 
maps, I say "hidden" because it's not as if the map of Jamestown 
connects to Deweyland and Pirsigtopia at the edges, one map ending 
and another picking up where it left off.  Every map describes the 
same world, and flipping back and forth between them, finding the 
hidden roads, is a matter of figuring out how they describe the same 
landmarks.  "Oh, see, Pirsig calls that hill 'direct experience,' but 
Dewey calls it...wait, that's not that hill.  Oh, this must be it: 'habits.'  
Boy, that's kind of weird..."  It is an active, live investigation of flipping 
back and forth.  And then, of course, one has one's own map.  Even if 
one's map is like mine, which is self-consciously scrapped together 
from other people's, one should never think that this makes it _less_ 
uniquely yours, and not itself a world unto itself.  After all, nobody but 
you has had the direct experience of your life.

Ron said:
As far as DQ, you captured my conception of it quite adequatly, 
whether or not you agree with it, or, it coincides with Pirsigs 
formulations seems almost secondary to that. I feel it links enough 
of Pirsigs ideas to qualify as within his line of thinking for my own 
acceptance and , hopefully, it seemed to breed a new direction of 
discussion which you seemed interested in. I think this aspect held the 
most promise.

Matt:
The nature of this conversation unveils itself--I don't remember what 
this conception is of yours that I captured well.  Do you want to state 
it again, in a new thread, and perhaps we can pick up and move with 
that?

Matt