[MD] The Hero's journey

[MarshaV]

Matt,

Without a question and with the introduction of 'trashing', 'denigrating' 
and 'revenge-attitude', you have terminated this language-game.

Bye,  

Marsha 





On Oct 27, 2011, at 7:48 PM, Matt Kundert wrote:

>>>> 
>>>> On Oct 26, 2011, at 5:50 PM, Matt Kundert wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hello Marsha,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Sorry about my joke--I'd sent the response post before reading your 
>>>>> catch of the mistake.  (And it hardly needs apologizing for--we all 
>>>>> make trivial mistakes like that.)
>>>>> 
>> snip...    
>>>> 
>>>> I think you have misstated that a _couple of times_ recently I invoked, to 
>>>> you, an "Absolute"  And, of course, I did not capitalize the absolute.  
>>> 
>>> Matt:
>>> No, I don't think I did misstate that.  I'm counting our exchange 
>>> earlier this month in "Taking Words Seriously," which at one point 
>>> you said, "If you would like to present standards by which an 
>>> argument is ultimately judged good or bad and why RMP presented 
>>> a bad argument, please do so" (Oct. 17).  This is the same gesture 
>>> I find weird.
>>> 
>>> That is the only one I can directly evidence, though I feel like we've 
>>> crossed this terrain before, which is the explanation for my vague 
>>> "second or third."  And no, you did not capitalize "Absolute."  I did.
>> 
>> Marsha:
>> I don't see Ultimate and "Absolute" as the same, and I would never 
>> capitalize 'absolute.'  I probably should totally drop the word 'absolute,'
>> but habits are sometimes hard to break.  I understand from your 
>> point-of-view RMP has presented a bad argument and may seem a 
>> less then adequate scholar.  
> 
> Matt:
> I'd hate to be misunderstood, but I don't think Pirsig's a "less than 
> adequate scholar."  He's "adequate" at least--but he's not a scholar, 
> principally because he never wanted to be.  I doubt if one asked him 
> he'd say that he is.  He's a philosopher, he'd say.  Which is great.  I 
> read scholars for their scholarship, and philosophers for their 
> philosophy.  But if either side tries to do what the other does, why 
> shouldn't we judge them according to what it is they're trying to do?
> 
> And I accept that _as a scholar_ you give Pirsig a higher rating than 
> I would.  But I don't see why your mode of expressing this fact 
> includes making it sound like I'm trashing Pirsig.  That's annoying at 
> least.
> 
>> 
>>>>> Matt:
>>>>> You wondered earlier about what it is I'm trying to grasp, and 
>>>>> whether I even know, but how about this as an answer: I'm trying to 
>>>>> grasp the inner workings of my own thought-processes while at the 
>>>>> same time trying to see how they fit other people's.  That's a way of 
>>>>> describing philosophical conversation.  What's mind-boggling to me 
>>>>> about conversing with you is that sometimes it seems like you're just 
>>>>> trying to flout being pinned down as thinking X or Y.  Like, every time 
>>>>> someone tries to approach your thinking in order to understand it, in 
>>>>> fact.  It's as if you interpret these communicative approaches as 
>>>>> attempts to dominate you, but sometimes that's just not what's 
>>>>> going on.
>>>> 
>>>> Since you have not asked a clear and concise question, but seem 
>>>> satisfied with your vague projections, I find no way to clearly respond.  
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks for writing.  
>>> 
>>> Matt:
>>> No, thank you for trying.  Part of my vague projecting is that your 
>>> philosophical identity is, to me, a vague mist, even after all these 
>>> years, and that every time I try and get a clear picture of what you 
>>> think, and show that picture to you, you snap at me.  So, all there is 
>>> to do is mistily describe a mist.  You can't capture a mist after all: it 
>>> disappears when you try.  But, I have to admit that part of the onus 
>>> must be on me at failing to develop a picture you won't snap at me 
>>> for.
>> 
>> Marsha:
>> Much of my understanding comes from practices that you dismiss:
>> mediation, mindfulness and three brief encounters of the unpatterned 
>> kind.
> 
> Matt:
> I didn't know I "dismissed" those things.  I'm not sure what you 
> precisely mean by them, but I'm also not sure when and how I did 
> the thing that makes you say that (even implicitly).
> 
> Marsha:
>> If you want an explanation, I might say philosophically I'm a radical 
>> skeptic and a negative empiricist, I mean just that: not this, not that.  Reality 
>> to me is Quality(Dynamic/static).  That seems very straight forward.  
> 
> Matt:
> Okay, for you.  I don't find the labels straightforward, but I find 
> myself to be straightforward sometimes when other people don't, so 
> I understand the feeling.
> 
> Marsha:
>> I don't snap with anger, more with a strange sense of humor.  
> 
> Matt:
> Fair enough.
> 
>>> Matt:
>>> And that's a hell of a lot more than anyone else will admit to you, 
>>> even though the frustration of talking to you I think is wider felt 
>>> than just by me.  
>> 
>> Marsha:
>> I appreciate that you try, and your being honest.  My expression 
>> might be different but it is true to my experience.
> 
> Matt:
> Fair enough.  Mine, too.
> 
> Sometimes, I guess...what if I put it to you this way: sometimes it 
> feels like when you're trying to clear out a space for your experience, 
> it feels like you're denigrating my experience.  And I know that 
> comes from your sense that people often try denigrating your 
> experience (I get this sense from watching you over the years, 
> particularly with what I'd call your feminism in a still masculinist 
> philosophical culture).  But I can't figure why you'd stand for 
> denigrating mine, because I can't believe you'd go in for a 
> revenge-attitude.  And I don't want to denigrate your experience, but 
> I've failed to figure out how to communicate my experience to you 
> without setting off those trip-wires.  I only want to toy with concepts.  
> Is there a way of doing the latter without mucking with the former 
> (denigrating one's experience)?
> 
>>> Matt:
>>> And yet, I'm never compensated by better 
>>> communicative channels by such "we're all in this together 
>>> sentiments."
>> 
>> Marsha:
>> I think maybe that mediation/mindfulness issue puts us in very 
>> different positions.  
> 
> Matt:
> Maybe.  I really couldn't say.  I have no responsible sense.
> 
>>> Matt:
>>> I feel these sentiments sincerely, that communication 
>>> is a boat every person _has_ to help steer.  But eventually we all 
>>> make that personal choice to ditch the boat we're on and seek other 
>>> ones.
>> 
>> Marsha:
>> Okay...  
> 
> Matt:
> Alright...
> 


 
___