DMB said: I was hoping that you'd noticed my new explanations. The stuff on James, Dewey and Mead, for example. I'd hoped you felt a sense of relief at the absence of any talk about mysticism in relation to pure experience.
Matt: Yeah, and I was hoping that you would agree with my glosses on such passages. But you didn't. Our problem is that our vocabularies are not hooking up. Our problem is that everything I say you seem to object to. And since everything you say is in a dialectically opposed position, half the time whatever "pure experience" is seems wrong. But you trot out James and Dewey and Mead--and we read the passages differently because when I gloss it, apparently I get it wrong. I like James and Dewey. I will continue to read James and Dewey and Peirce and Emerson. But there is a good chance we won't read them together because we are just not speaking the same language. All the names you love are names that I think primarily serve to obfuscate. Matt _________________________________________________________________ Peek-a-boo FREE Tricks & Treats for You! http://www.reallivemoms.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM&loc=us 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/
