[Matt]
> I don't struggle with radical empiricism per se.
> The part that strikes me as odd is how the notion of
> "pure experience" even survives once one becomes a
> pragmatist/radical empiricist. If we follow Dewey
> in thinking there's no difference between experience
> and reality (which I take to be the purest
> articulation of the contention of radical
> empiricism), then how does one wedge in a difference
> between pure and unpure experience/reality, one that
> doesn't look like the appearance/reality
> distinction? But more importantly, what would that
> distinction do if it wasn't leaning on the A/R
> distinction?
What is unpure experience? I understand your
trying to point out a difference in what reality is,
and how people come up with these different
philosophies. If reality was experience, then why the
differences, what's making the distinctions. I find
it is where you place your focus. If you want to
focus on A/R distinction, then so be it. Pure
experience is pointing out something more that doesn't
downplay appearance as non-reality. Appearance is
just as acceptable as a reality as any other reality
notion. It is this intellectual flexibility that is
able to point this out, thus, a notion that is not
coming from the A or just the R in the A/R
distinction. Think of mu. Mu is intellectual enough
to be understood, but it is not just A and not just R.
Is this what your wondering about? Also, experience
is not just an intellectual exercise in defining A or
R. Experience is social, biological, and inorganic,
and let us not forget how all of these change with
events: dq.
thanks
SA
____________________________________________________________________________________
Tonight's top picks. What will you watch tonight? Preview the hottest shows on
Yahoo! TV.
http://tv.yahoo.com/
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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
