david B on Fri, 27 Feb 2009 12:41: you posted
Marsha said to David Swift: Philosophizing indeed, and with such a distinguished list as Hobbes, Hume, Locke and Kant. It's hard to believe there would be exact agreement between these philosophers, especially in regards to a word like 'feeling' with its many definitions and multiple layers of connotation. Maybe you can offer some quotes as evidence to establish their agreement of usage and definition. ...'Feeling' like all sq is sometimes conventionally useful and has a beauty of its own. dmb says: I think that's right. Feelings and instincts would probably be a static biological response to DQ. Hume was an empiricist and so is Pirsig but there is an important distinction between the traditional forms of empiricism and the radical empiricism of the MOQ. The former is also called sensory empiricism because it holds that the external objective world comes to us through the senses, through the sense organs, and it does so from within the assumptions of subject-object metaphysics. The radical empiricism of William James, which is adopted by the MOQ, differs from this by both rejecting the metaphysical assumptions and by expanding the notion of what counts as empirical evidence. In traditional empiricism we experience reality through the senses but in radical empiricism experience is reality. DS says: Thanks for making the distinction. Are you all in agreement that TiTs don't exist in MoQ? Have you gone completely over to the idealism of Schopenhauer? If so what sense do you make of the inorganic SQ level? -david swift 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/
