Hi DMB, you said "Reminds me of the time Ian took me for a bible-thumping Jesus freak. He confessed this just as I was about to deliver the "Fun with Blasphemy" paper. Or was it just after?"
Bible-thumping red-neck I think. It was before ... the evening before when I first met you. And I should remind readers it was me that was laughing - couldn't stop - and I just had to tell you why I every contact with you from that point made me chuckle. How wrong an impression could I have gained from (relatively few at that time) e-mail exchanges. (I'm over it now by the way.) Ian On 10/18/07, david buchanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > DM said to dmb: > What an odd blind spot you have about how language works. Ham is entitled to > make a distinction any way he likes. A good dose of Rorty would help you > here. Ham says he calls what we sense prior to conceptualisation a sensation > and what we conceptualise experience-proper. I assume he has his reasons for > doing this. You and I may decide it does not work for us, it has no use, we > can make better sense of our sensations and experiences with different > language but it is easy to understand the distinction, it might have its > uses. It is up to Ham to show what that use is. If we are gonna walk the MOQ > walk we need to use lines of argument and justification that don't contradict > our MOQ take on language. That's my view. You damage debate with these lapses. > > dmb says: > Yes, I realize that Ham is defining experience as conceptual. That's what > makes no sense and that's exactly my problem with Rorty. (The text is > conceptual and its text all the way down.) As I see, this objection does not > damage the debate. It IS the debate. Defining experience that way doesn't > just fail to work for me, although that's true too, it doesn't work in the > context of the MOQ. As I understand it, James and Dewey thought that > definition made no sense and that defintion of experience excludes dynamic > quality from the MOQ, construes it outside of experience. And in the MOQ that > would put quality outside of reality. That is wildly opposed to the notion > that reality is nothing but experience. That's why Ham's definition, my > hair-brained friend, makes no sense. And neither does your defense of it. A > dose of Rorty would help and you're sending Rorty to the rescue for Ham and > the MOQ? Even if that were true, you gotta realize that is not going to > persuade me. When have I ever said anything positive about Richard Rorty? I > mean, dude, consider your audience here. This is so wrong that it becomes > comedy. Reminds me of the time Ian took me for a bible-thumping Jesus freak. > He confessed this just as I was about to deliver the "Fun with Blasphemy" > paper. Or was it just after? In any case, it was funny and so is your advice > here. > > Besides, just in terms of common sense and conventional definitions, it makes > no sense to say that what we endure, enjoy or otherwise go through is not an > experience. If sensations are felt or lived through in what sense is that not > an experience? Whatever we feel, face, undergo is experience. The certainty > Descartes could establish without the help of God was his own doubt about > everything else. All he could know for sure was the experience of doubting. > His existence is an iffy deduction compared to that. Can't Ham's distinction > be made without refusing to admit that sensations are experienced in some > way? Isn't it simply more intelligible to distinquish between cognitive and > non-cognitive experience rather than assert that one is not experience at > all? As Dewey says, knowledge is not the only kind of experience and the > there is a big difference between having an experience and KNOWING you had an > experience. If anything, we should reserve the word for the actual having of > experience and we should say the subsequent reflections and conceptions are > something else derived from the real thing. That doesn't really work either, > but I'm just saying that if we really HAD TO exclude one or the other, I > would still object to Ham's definition. But maybe that's just how I define > the meaning of the phrase "makes no sense". And since you such a good > Rortian, you'll allow me to define things however I like. > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Climb to the top of the charts! Play Star Shuffle: the word scramble > challenge with star power. > http://club.live.com/star_shuffle.aspx?icid=starshuffle_wlmailtextlink_oct > 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/ > 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/
