Hi DMB (and Ron et al) I think there is agreement here.
Clearly Dewey and James et al "arose" out of a SOMist culture, but equally clearly (like most of us here) they were not "prisoners" within it. I have to say DMB with that cluster of quotes - I am finding "radical empiricism" much clearer as a concept. Thanks for that. The "triple" of subject / interaction / object as a monism where no one of the parts has independent existence - "unanalyzed unity". I think it's been said many times on here. Anyway, having recently read - "Pragmatism - A Reader" by Louis Menand. I have to say that Peirce original work seems worth reading too - though perhaps unsurprisingly he doesn't explicitly coin the idea of "radical pragmatism" since in fact as we know despite being held as the originator by Dewey & James, he didn't even coin the idea of pragmstism itself either. http://www.amazon.com/Pragmatism-Reader-Louis-Menand/dp/0679775447/ref=pd_sim_b_img_4 Ian On 1/14/08, david buchanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Ron, Bo and all MOBers: > > John J. Stuhr, the editor of "Pragmatism and Classical American Philosophy" > says, "In beginning to understand his view, it cannot be overemphasized that > Dewey is not using the word 'experience' in its conventional sense. For > Dewey, experience is not to be understood in terms of the experiencing > subject, or as the interaction of a subject and object that exist separate > from their interaction. Instead, Dewey's view is radically empirical" (PCAP > 437). Stuhr further explains that in this radically empirical view, > "experience is an activity in which subject and object are unified and > constituted as partial features and relations within this ingoing, unanalyzed > unity". > > As Dewey himself says in "The Need for a Recovery of Philosophy", this > problem only "exists because it is assumed that there is a knower in general, > who is outside of the world to be known, and who is defined in terms > antithetical to the traits of the world" (PCAP 449). Or, as William James > puts it in "A World of Pure Experience", "the first great pitfall from which > a radical standing by experience will save us is an artificial conception of > the relations between knower and known. Throughout the history of philosophy > the subject and its object have been treated as absolutely discontinuous > entities" and their relations have "assumed a paradoxical character which all > sorts of theories had to be invented to overcome" (PCAP 184). > > Or, as the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (http://plato.stanford.edu/) > says in their article on James, he "set out the metaphysical view most > commonly known as 'neutral monism', according to which there is one > fundamental 'stuff' that is neither material nor mental" (SEP 2). > > Gents, how many times and how many ways do I have to say it? These quotes, > from four different philosophers, demonstrate in unequivocal terms that we > are NOT prisoners to SOM. Obviously, James and Dewey are directly attacking > SOM and the commentators see them that way too. > > I really don't understand why you feel the need to dismiss this or explain it > away. Why shouldn't MOQers be thrilled that Pirsig has company in this? > Seriously. Why? > > Oh, never mind. I give up. I can't MAKE you think otherwise. All I can do is > show you and I've already done that too many times. > > Sigh. > > dmb > > P.S. Yes, these quotes were copied from my word processor. If the text is > messy, that's why. > > > ---------------------------------------- > > Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 09:22:55 -0500 > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: [MD] Mindless Metaphysics > > > > Dmb: > > James and Dewey are non-SOM philosophers and that's my main point. > > Their work is proof that there are non-SOM alternatives at the > > intellectual level. > > > > Ron: > > The angle is that they are SOM philosophers, they were born and bred in > > western culture, they use English, a subject object case language to > > describe non-analytic alternatives. They project a paradigm outside > > Of the cultural normative thought structure, James and Dewey offer > > Radical inclusion to analytic empirical method. They contend that no > > Data is strictly objective and factual, It is all colored by cultural > > And personal bias. > > It is the realization that we can not trust ourselves to objectively > > Evaluate any data absolutely, we may however reduce error by applying > > A radical empiricism. > > It is a refinement of SOM methods, it is truer via James own convictions > > Of any new idea's test is the compatibility with former ideas. > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > Put your friends on the big screen with Windows Vista(r) + Windows > > Live(tm). > > http://www.microsoft.com/windows/shop/specialoffers.mspx?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_ > > CPC_MediaCtr_bigscreen_012008 > > 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/ > > _________________________________________________________________ > Get the power of Windows + Web with the new Windows Live. > http://www.windowslive.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_Wave2_powerofwindows_012008 > 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/
