Ron Yes, on Whitehead. Of course phenomenology creates a non-SOM language, see Heidegger's Being and Time and this:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Heidegger-Whitehead-Phenomenological-Examination-Intelligibility/dp/0821410601/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200603664&sr=1-2 David M ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ron Kulp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 9:18 PM Subject: Re: [MD] Mindless Metaphysics > > > 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/ > 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/
