Matt said, > That definitely wasn't me. I was responding to both you and DMB.
Matt said, > I stay away from authorial intention. I say, along with Dennett another Rortian, that in order to extract meaning you need to take the "intentional stance" Anyway, I see your point of contention with DMB has reduced to "name calling" ... what is "called" radical empiricism as a "philosophical position" as opposed to the actual pragmatic value of radical empiricism. I find it ironic that neo-pragmatists would find that argument worth having. In practice ... the $64,000 question I mentioned .... If we think of the experienced world primarily as relations, (interactions invloving things, dynamic processes) ahead of any thoughts as to what the inter-related things might be (ahead of any analysis of any subjects and/or objects involved), then we are taking the Radical Empiricist view. I'm happy to agree with DMB and move on. Ian 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/
