Gav, Dave, I believe it's roughly this distinction on which our arguement is based upon. To be aware of it and be artful at making it in experience sucessfully. There is a long tradition of it. The dispute you bring up between Rorty and James is similar to the distinction between Socrates and Aristotle. Which is why I think Aristotle and James share alot in common. It's the totality of the whole affair. Yes it is a linguistic affair yet that linguistic affair part of experience is always validated by that part of experience which is direct and immediate. Because of this, the realization and concern immediately becomes one of accurately predicating that linguistic affair, constantly squaring it with that directness in experience.
I would address Bodvars misunderstanding of this and attempt to clarify it but I'm not sure you need it, nor Bodvar willing so why waste virtual ink. plus, it doesent profit by going on in circles about it. In a way he is useful, the new members (including mysef when I was new) seem to naturaly gravitate to him. I'ts that compelling "objective" approach, it's NOT making that distinction between the linguistic affair and direct affair. Ron ----- Original Message ---- From: david buchanan <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Fri, March 12, 2010 1:44:18 PM Subject: Re: [MD] continental and analytic philosophy 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 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
