Hi DMB Now that you have mastered the "rope trick" of shortening your long lines (at least now and then) can't you try to add paragraphs - the ENTER key? Some eye weakness with me demands breaks in long texts and I really think you posts are worth reading.
Please Bo > > > Krimel said to dmb: > You seem to be saying here that truth is judged on the basis of how > well one's beliefs correspond to one's experience. Isn't that just > another version of a correspondence theory of truth that you not so > long ago gave me a huge ration of shit about? dmb says:Good question. > In fact, Richard Mullin's example of the cow path is meant to > illustrate the difference between the traditional correspondence > theory of truth and the pragmatic theory of truth. Just prior to that > example he says, "a belief hold true if it agrees with reality. This > formula sound like the traditional correspondence theory of truth, But > James carries it further by asking what it means for an idea to > correspond to reality. ...They correspond if they lead us to a > satisfactory relationship with reality. Truth is a LEADING. James > provides an anecdote to illustrate the meaning of truth as a leading. > A lone hiker in the mountains gets lost..." As you know, Pirsig says > experience is reality and in terms of the cow path example the hiker's > true belief led to a happy ending at the farmer's warm house. His > belief agreed with experience, was proven true in that particular > experience. > > Krimel continued: > "So called subjective"? Isn't that a strawman knocking at your back > door? Aren't vision, hearing, taste, touch and smell "so called > subjective" experiences? Don't the relations between "so called sense > objects" present themselves through the "so called senses"? Aren't > whatever qualities that are missing from the sense data supplied by > the thoughts and beliefs we use to process them? What specifically do > you think radical empiricism adds that can't be derived from plain ol' > empiricism? dmb says:Unlike sensory empiricism, radical empiricism > doesn't limit experience to the kind we can potentially all agree on, > the stuff anyone can see. It says that things like dreams, visions, > mystical experience, feelings and emotions are just as real as the > things that are known through the senses. I recently used Jung's > attitude to illustrate this. He says these are psychological facts > that ought not be dismissed simply because they aren't universally > accessible. Or, as Pirsig puts it, these things are dismissed for > metaphysical reasons, not empirical reasons. Traditional empiricism > will dismiss them because they're "just" subjective. Yea, he says, > they're subjective but why do we say they are "just" subjective? Or, > as James says in his essays on Radical Empiricism we have to account > for everything that is experienced. Krimel said: I believe what James > was objecting to was the introspective method. Introspectionism > developed starting with Wundt and was put into hyperdrive by Titchner. > The hope of the introspectionists was to engage in self examination > and refine the process in an effort to identify "so called atoms" of > thought. They believed that this would somehow put a science of inner > life on a par with the science of the external world. James' view was > that there are no such atoms in the same way that he thought > consciousness was a process not a thing. > > dmb says:Hmmm. I didn't know that but it makes a lot of sense out of > what I've been hearing at school about Edmund Husserl's phenomenology. > He was trying to get at internal things in a similar way but became > famous for his concepts of "intentionality". He hoped to stick with > the "subjective" experience of consciousness but soon realized that > consciousness is always ABOUT something, always has an intention, a > focus. And I think James get at this with his idea of the continuity > of experience, which includes a continuity between knower and known. > They say Husserl was the last great Cartesian, which is why James was > so much better at the business of phenomenology. He was refuting the > Cartesian duality between mental substances and extended substances. > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Windows LiveĀ: Keep your life in sync. > http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t1_allup_explore_0120 > 09 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/
