Ron: Therefore James is not expanding sensory empiricism, he is to a point, but he is by limiting it to expereince, percept is actually a concept and it's primacy is actually conceptual, it stands symbolically for raw sensory data, but we never experience raw sensory data, it is an assumption drawn from experience. The reason he focuses on value and meaning in his work on "Pragmatism".
[Krimel] No, he makes the distinction clear. Perception is primary and concepts are secondary. Even the much vaunted "pure experience" is entirely a matter of sensation. >From a World of Pure Experience: Pure experience is the name which I gave to the immediate flux of life which furnishes the material to our later reflection with its conceptual categories. Only new-born babes, or men in semi-coma from sleep, drugs, illnesses or blows, may be assumed to have an experience pure in the literal sense of a that which is not yet any definite what, tho ready to be all sorts of whats; full both of oneness and of manyness, but in respects that dont appear; changing throughout, yet so confusedly that its phases interpenetrate and no points, either of distinction or of identity, can be caught. Pure experience in this state is simply but another name for feeling or sensation. 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/
