Platt said to dmb: Perhaps you will see fit to save us the time and trouble of trying to find philosophers, postmodern or otherwise, who use the specific terms "intellectual level" and "subject-object metaphysics" in their texts by furnishing us a few quotes. I for one would appreciate it.
Ron replied: Hey Platt, Ever here of a thesaurus? See, there is this crazy notion that different words can have the same meaning. dmb says: That's exactly what I was thinking, Ron. Thanks. Not only is it unreasonable to ask not just for the same ideas but the same ideas in exactly the same terms Pirsig uses, it is also unreasonable to ask for such evidence because I've already provided it. Many times. Most recently I referred the James quote at the end of chapter 29 in Lila. There we see that James not only attacks subject and objects IN THOSE TERMS and refers to them as secondary and conceptual, but he also takes up the terms "static" and "dynamic". I've also quoted from the text books assigned at the University where they say the same things about Dewey's radical empiricism, wherein his notion of experience can't rightly be understood in terms of subjects and objects. Again the philosophers reject that premise in those terms that Platt so unreasonably demands. If that fails to convince, then I really don't know what would. And that's why I'm not too interested in discussing it, least of all with people who have such unreasonable, unmovable opinions. _________________________________________________________________ Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469229/direct/01/ 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/
