[MD] Taking words Seriously

[Matt Kundert]

DMB said:
Matt: You'll be glad to see that I have taken up only a very small, 
managable portion.

Matt:
Yeah, but as you often complain of me, you've ignored my 
substantive portions for the methodological portions.

DMB said:
You're missing the point. I've gathered the descriptions of various 
philosophers as a means of carefully reflecting on the meaning of 
the central term. It's a comparative analysis of the central term.

Matt:
I didn't take up any terms to reject them--you missed _my_ point 
when I tried to delineated what it was limited to.

DMB said:
But that means that you've very recently given up a hobby that you 
had for ten years.

Matt:
I think you've been reading me very poorly for a little while then, 
because my shift happened some time ago.  Perhaps you're 
confusing assertion that Pirsig _is_ a Platonist or whatever (indeed, 
if ever I actually did, which I'm not sure I'd concede) with 
attempting to understand how a piece of philosophy is or is not 
caught up in certain kinds of assumptions and consequences.  Call 
that disingenuous if you want, but it's a sensitivity I wished you 
had.  I haven't stated a case about Pirsig in _years_.  I have tried 
to modulate my performances to reflect the nature of my ability, 
command of the subject, and skin in the game.  I can't help it if 
you're haunted by the past.

DMB said:
Your accusations of Platonism are my main motivation in trying to 
explain DQ.

Matt:
That makes a lot of sense about how you misread me, and Steve, 
too.  

Your style of apprehension is like that of Elizabethan era Courtier 
Politics: you see subterfuge, betrayal, treason, and deceptive 
promises everywhere.  But this isn't a game of getting people 
unwittingly over to your side before revealing how they've been 
duped into abdicating the True Way.  This is philosophical inquiry, 
where people who agree with me for the wrong reasons, or for 
reasons they don't understand, or cannot state, make me as wary 
as people I disagree with: philosophy is about self-conscious 
understanding.  I know you agree, yet you treat me as a poisoner of 
wells, which assumes that I _do not_ move forth with an open, 
inquiring and sincere mind.  And it's impossible to mutually inquire 
with a person who thinks that of you, or with a person you think 
that of.

Why didn't you take up the bits where I tried to help you understand 
what I _was_ saying about Pirsig?

Matt