[Wittrs] Re: What I Want From the List
- From: kirby urner <kirby.urner@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 15:04:47 -0700
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 1:02 PM, Sean Wilson<whoooo26505@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> Kirby:
>
> I don't know that I have been exactly understood. If one would say to
> another "this view is wrong for reasons such-and-such," and another would
> respond "no it is not, for such-and-such" -- the two are, indeed, "dancing"
> in the metaphor I used. The mere fact that they reciprocate these exchanges
> is the dance itself. As I said, we dance not with the body, but with
> proposition.
>
> It is only when one begins to say things like, for example, "your capacity
> is poor," "you can't spell," "you just can't get it," "you're never going to
> learn," -- that one says, in effect, "you don't dance very well." At this
> point the behavior ceases being a Tango and becomes something else. Because
> people often do not see that disputation is a behavior akin to dance, they
> wrongly come to believe that they must persevere or win during the exchange.
> Or that if their view isn't validated in another, it must be because of
> faults somewhere in the person.
>
Yes thank you for your clarifications.
There's a category of opponent called coach and/or sparring partner
where there's permission given to say "you can't dance" or "you're
weak" but I think that should be a paid or compensated position i.e.
I'm happier just doing my dance and challenging the competition
through stronger performance, but behind the scenes I'm OK with a more
"in your face" mode, provided I'm sufficiently compensated.
Here on Wittrs, we're mostly strangers to one another, not involved in
paid coaching relationships. However I do have a history of paying
masters to not be yes men or women, and kick me in the butt sometimes
-- but none of those coaches have joined this list, just speaking for
myself.
> All one can ever really do with discourse is show. All one can ever do with
> such a showing is sense its refinement. This part of the activity is
> remarkably like cooking. And so let us summarize it this way. If someone
> offers a viewpoint, treat it as an invitation to dance. Never tell the
> person that they don't know how to dance during the behavior. Once you have
> completed the "dance with propositions," ask yourself whether the cooking
> was good. But in no case tell another that it doesn't count as "cooking."
> Instead, merely say you find it not to your taste -- and if this reoccurs,
> decline future dance invitations.
>
There's a more active stance though, which I associate with "liberal
arts", which involves acquiring a taste. People are always telling
you that thus and so is "an acquired taste" but then where does one go
to acquire it? Wittgenstein's philo would be in that category I
think. I could well imagine a traveling philosopher, just passing
through, sampling the cooking from one of our booths, heading off to a
corner and quietly puking his guts out (or her)... then back for more
the next day. You don't insult the cook, I agree, but it may be
obvious to the cook and all onlookers that this is one of those cases
of a tenacious student wanting another go at the chili.
I have a true story of a Japanese speaking student friend of mine,
dropped out of Princeton because Columbia was stronger in Japanese,
going to Japan for a first visit, trying to enter some Dojo, be
accepted for martial arts training. They beat him up. He'd go back
the next day. They'd beat him up again. His mental model was they'd
eventually accept him, but that wasn't the case. He ended up giving
up (not on the Japanese thing though, eventually moved there, had a
family, became an investment banker).
I'm not saying this is a dojo in that sense, but I might imagine
someone joining who is looking to develop some Wittgenstein chops, and
if everyone is just walking away, refusing to dance, when she or he
acts all dorky and awkward, then how is she or he ever to learn?
Put another way, I don't want my "agreeing to dance" being tacitly
understood to mean "agreeing with the philosophy", but then I don't
want my walking away to mean "doesn't like or agree with the cooking".
It might more mean: just unable to deal with it at the moment, but
not out of disrespect, on the contrary I'll be back for more down the
road, maybe.
> You may find of eaters that many have only ordinary tastes. And you may find
> of chefs that some are only worth their specialty dishes. Dance only
> when the labor promises to benefit your pallet. A man who gets nothing from
> his meal isn't living well. I cook more than I eat.
>
All good, but maybe leave room for the tenacious tourist who appears
not to be enjoying his meal, but keeps coming back for more, because
learning something nevertheless, and grateful for the opportunity.
Kirby
> Regards.
>
>
> Dr. Sean Wilson, Esq.
>
> Assistant Professor
>
> Wright State University
>
> Redesigned Website: http://seanwilson.org
>
> SSRN papers: http://ssrn.com/author=596860
>
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/seanwilsonorg
>
> Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/seanwilsonorg
>
> New Discussion Group: http://seanwilson.org/wittgenstein.discussion.html
>
> ________________________________
> From: kirby urner <kirby.urner@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 3:16:32 PM
> Subject: Re: [Wittrs] What I Want From the List
>
>
>
> There is such a thing as coaching too, where you sign up to have your
> coach say stuff like "no, you're wrong" or "that's not how to do it".
> Actually paying someone to be critical of one is a whole set of
> language games right there.
>
> And I think that's what it means to be on a faculty with a peer group
> (they'll sometimes get in your face, but more often just role model
> what they're best at, walking their own talk) -- unless, that is, you
> just wanted a buncha "yes men" around the board room table, nodding in
> unison about how great you are -- not how we run things as Quakers, I
> can assure you.
>
> .
>
>
Other related posts:
