[MD] Rejecting SOM

[david]

John said:
Thanks Dave.  I appreciate your help even when I already knew all that stuff. Just kidding. But I've  come to regard ZAMM as at the forefront of popularizing post modern thought or alternately - Postmodernism for Dummies. Hey!  There's a book idea for you.

dmb says:
That's all you have to say? Dude, I'm trying to help you see what SOM really is because you have many distorted concepts about it. Hickman's explanation of the pragmatic (and postmodern) rejection of SOM should have helped you see what SOM is. Your claims about SOM are refuted here, see? 

So you clearly do not "appreciate" the help at all. Can you make your ideas about the giant fit into Hickman's description? Does it comport with Pirsig's quotes about what runs the giant? Does it add up against the blog article I posted on the continental's rejection of SOM? No. No. And no. If you weren't so busy ignoring all this stuff you would have realized that your claims make no sense. Your mixed up about the levels too but, like I said, you don't understand what "SOM" means.

Don't you want to know the meaning of the terms you use? And why stick to such terrible guns? Your conversational behavior is downright disturbing and your little brush off here is just one more example. Again, it's not honest or fair. Also, copying Wikipedia's entry on realism to fake your own definition of SOM is also disturbingly dishonest. This kind of "cheating" is quite worthy of criticism and doing so is not the same as mere insult or name-calling. The disputes over the meaning of concepts is one thing, but this complaint about your conversational behavior is another.
 




> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 2:21 PM, david <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
> >
> > More helpful help for John to ignore....
> >
> > Historian James Livingston says the classical pragmatists like Dewey and
> > James were already postmodern way before it was cool. And what is it that
> > makes them postmodern? If you look at what they do not believe, hopefully,
> > you can see that REJECTING SOM is one thing that pragmatism and
> > postmodernism have in common. Livingston says they...
> >
> > "...do not believe that thoughts and things inhabit different ontological
> > orders: they do not acknowledge an external or natural realm of objects, of
> > things-in-themselves, which is ultimately impervious to, or fundamentally
> > different than, thought or mind or consciousness. Accordingly, they escape
> > the structure of meanings built around the modern subjectivity, which
> > presupposes the self's separation or cognitive distance from this reified
> > realm of objects."
> >
> > Even further, Richard Rorty thought they were way ahead of the
> > postmodernist....
> >
> > "James and Dewey were not only waiting at the end of the dialectical road
> > which analytic philosophy traveled, but are waiting at the end of the road
> > which, for example, Foucault and Deleuze are currently traveling."
> >
> > Larry Hickman takes the ball from Rorty and really runs with it in his
> > book "Pragmatism as Post-Postmodernism". He lists several ways in which
> > classical pragmatism is like postmodern. As you can see, both of them are
> > rejecting a series of Modern philosophical doctrines. Here again you can
> > see the rejection of SOM, especially in quote #2 & #6.
> >
> > 1. "It rejects Cartesian and other types of attempts to provide ultimate
> > foundations for knowledge claims, opting instead for a view of
> > knowledge-getting that involves the construction and reconstruction of
> > temporarily differentiated platforms of action.. indefinitely."
> >
> > 2. "It rejects the spectator theory of knowledge, according to which true
> > knowledge is constituted by an accurate internal representation of an
> > external fact, electing instead a perspectival view of knowledge-getting..."
> >
> > 3. "It rejects the view that the sources of knowledge or the norms thereof
> > are derived from locations that are outside of experience itself. In other
> > words, both the transcendent accounts of supernaturalist theologies and
> > various forms of Platonism, as well as Kantian accounts of
> > knowledge-getting that depend upon a transcendental ego, are rejected.."
> >
> > 4. "It rejects the idea that human knowing can achieve absolute
> > certainty,.. And it rejects the possibility of the grand narrative,.."
> >
> > 5. "What Dewey termed 'the quest for certainty,' based ultimately on an
> > obsession with skepticism that seems to have been the leitmotif of
> > modernist thought, is rejected as unproductive."
> >
> > 6. "Modernist subjectivity is also recast. The self of classical
> > pragmatism is no longer isolated as a self-contained thinking entity - such
> > as a transcendental ego - over against an external world of objects and
> > other thinking entities. ..The self of classical pragmatism is,
> > nevertheless, not so decentered as to be elusive, aas some postmodernist
> > writers would have it."
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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
> >
> 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