Krimel said to dmb:
Nice dodging the actual issues. ...don't you see how obviously wrong it is to 
claim that experience occurs without a locus of experience? How that locus of 
experience classifies itself is what James is talking about. I am not saying 
that subjects and objects are starting points at all. ...I am neither subject 
nor object I am merely a locus of the experience.

dmb replies:
I think "locus" is a weasel word here. It is just the experiencing subject 
prior to his classifying himself as such. I mean, if pure experience is 
unqualified and undifferentiated how can there be a locus. Isn't a point pretty 
much the opposite of a continuum? As you construe it, the subject is a 
classification AND the classifier. That totally misses the point. It 
reintroduces the subject as primary, who then produces the secondary concept of 
itself. You really don't see that?

I know. You keep saying stuff like this. There has to be a locus. Experience 
doesn't happen in a vacuum. Some kind of cat smiling in the void. Blah, blah, 
blah. This is the "actual issue" I keep dodging. But I keep telling you that it 
only seems wrong because you're looking at it through SOM eyes. The idea of the 
subject being secondary just doesn't compute because SOM says otherwise. So you 
keep putting it back into the primary position, this time with "locus" as your 
weasel word. It allows you to retain the concept without using the word. I 
suspect there's also a kind of panic around the idea that reality has no 
foundation or essence of which things are made. Experience itself doesn't suit 
your idea of a ground. But if there is some condition or pre-requisite for 
experience, a structure under experience that makes it all possible, how could 
we possibly know anything or say anything about that. Radical Empiricism begins 
and ends in experience. The first experience, pure experience is as much a 
ground as you'll get here. I mean, its probably a bit sloppy to call it a 
vacuum or a void, but not entirely wrong. Emptiness and Nothingness are closer. 
See, the idea is to overturn SOM, essentialism, foundationalism, materialism, 
scientism, reductionism and these are what you've been dishing up. Sorry dude, 
but you're way, way, way off and I've got school to think about. 

Thanks.

 
_________________________________________________________________
Get thousands of games on your PC, your mobile phone, and the web with Windows®.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/108588800/direct/01/
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/

Reply via email to