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? Ron: Dmb, I'm as thrilled as you are but lets not let it make us lose sight of The larger implications. I have no argument with your quotes, they do Attack SOM they also offer solutions within the context. But it's within The context. I'm not dismissing it or explaining it away, I acknowledge It as what it is. But as long as we live in SOM culture use SOM language And intellectualize about SOM as a concept, we are trapped in SOM. Whitehead at least created a language to operate outside of culture. He is by far (he and Russell) the foremost explorers in this realm Of shedding SOM. They at least endeavored to actually create an operating paradigm that breaks from cultural conventions. They were really doing it. This is where Topos theory should ring applicable to you for it is a Formal language syntax based on radical empiricism. Want to really Impress those professors? Look into that! 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/
