gav said:
...i thought language was experience language extends experience 'it is the
capacity for imagination to expect, anticipate or extend experience that
produces formations [language/concepts] that *seem* to govern human life but
are actually outgrowths or fictions produced from life.' claire colebrook on
deleuze
dmb says:
Roughly, that's how I see it too. Against slogans like "all awareness is a
linguistic affair", Pirsig and James would say, "That's not true and as a
matter of fact our philosophies and our modes of rationality suffer greatly by
ignoring non-linguistic awareness." Like Colebrook, they see words and
concepts as elements that are derived from experience and function within
experience. Like I said, the "question about language and experience, at least
roughly, is about whether it's possible to reconcile Rorty and James". Whereas
Rorty wants to drop epistemology and truth theories altogether and instead puts
the emphasis on language (intersubjective agreement, better vocabularies),
James asserts radical empiricism and a theory of truth based on what can be
justified in actual experience.
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft’s powerful SPAM protection.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/210850552/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/md/archives.html
