John said: Well I did expect more of a response to my attack on Empiricism; Dave's been pretty quiet lately. He's either thinking hard and trying to come up with a response or he's throwing his hands up in disgust and pursuing more interesting endeavors. We'll soon see!
dmb says: I haven't been thinking or throwing up my hands, just camping in the Rockies again. We were at 9000 feet on a very clear, moonless night. I'd say we saw some stars but that doesn't really describe it. It's more like we were out in space with them. Best sky I ever saw. Awesome. Your attack on radical empiricism, however, was more than a little off target. What was it you said to Marsha when she asked you about pre-conceptual experience? John said to Marsha: "I define concept as "patterned brain stimulation" - which just about includes everything. Other people define "concept" as "words". Thus I do believe in their non-conceptual experience, I just don't believe in mine." dmb says: That sort of thing just doesn't work. I mean, if you're altering the meaning of the central terms of radical empiricism then your attack becomes irrelevant, which is to say it's not an attack at all. In that case, it's just an attack on a fiction of your own making. It's just a misunderstanding of radical empiricism. You're perfectly free to disagree with James's concept of "concept" but an attack upon it does require that you first understand how he's using the term and what it means within radical empiricism. This is not an arbitrary requirement to join some club, of course, it's just a logical necessity. Criticism of an idea is only valid to the extent that we actually understand that idea. To continue with the war metaphor, you can't locate and hit the target unless you know what it looks like. If you like I could jump into the running commentary you offered up on the article written for the William James Society and show you some spots where you seem to be misreading the thing. But I'd like to respond to your stuff about Idealism and Ken Kesey too. You're contributing some really interesting posts, John, and they're fun to read as well. I'm glad you're hanging around here. John said to Bo: Quality is ultimately the "big picture" - an Idealistic framework - and radical empiricism is the reductionistic mechanism thought (by some) to prove/produce its existence. dmb says: No, the metaphysics of Quality is the big picture and it's an intellectual framework, just as all metaphysical systems are. Quality is direct, everyday experience, not a mechanism and certainly not a reductionist mechanism. Quality doesn't need to be proved because the term refers to what all persons already know directly from experience. Do you need a mechanism by which it can be proved that you don't like lima beans? Nope. You just put them in your mouth and you immediately know they're awful. This is not "knowledge" in the conceptual sense of the word, but you know it for sure. You "know" in the sense of a basic familiarity as in, "I know that face" or "I know that song" or "I know that kind of heartache". You "know" what I mean? _________________________________________________________________ Bing™ brings you maps, menus, and reviews organized in one place. Try it now. http://www.bing.com/search?q=restaurants&form=MLOGEN&publ=WLHMTAG&crea=TXT_MLOGEN_Local_Local_Restaurants_1x1 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/
