Or, it could be as simple as this. Dave says "You remain unpersuaded as to the value of the preconceptual/conceptual distinction ... of radical empiricism"
Matt says "Yes" The problem being it's "the value of it" that Matt is concerned about, whereas Dave has a greater interest in articulating where it fits in academic philosophical argument. Matt confuses that issue by quoting academic philosophers and writers in attempting to express his concern intellectually - whereas his concern is not in fact intellectual. (Which I think is what Ron and John tried to say ?) Incidentally - I suspect gav's problem with (his friend) Dave has a similar basis - Dave being focussed on the "intellectual" nature of the pre-conceptual / conceptual split. The paradox is clear, no ? (And not unconnected with Matt's meta-point about non-sophist meta-meta-philosophy - Socrates clinching argument was to take the poison to secure his place in the pantheon - beat that Plato.) Incidentally too, Dave, don't think I'm trying to persuade you you are wrong .... in fact I think you will go long way to "proving" that a philosophy of value is "intellectually" intractable, or not. Like any good experiment, either result could be of enormous value to the rest of us. It's a very good research aim. Ian On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 2:21 AM, Matt Kundert <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dave logged his repeated complaint that I don't understand > James, and I logged my typical response (a shrug that I still > don't get it), but somehow the back and forth continues on > interminably way past the point at which either of us > represent ourselves very well. Since I have nothing new to > say about James, or this so-called debate/disagreement > between Dave and I, I wanted to simply reference the last > interesting thing I did think of to say, contained in a post at > my site (in case anyone was interested in our nattering): > > http://pirsigaffliction.blogspot.com/2010/01/discussion-with-dave-buchanan.html > > But, once again in case people don't understand, I am > confessing that I am not smart enough to understand Dave's > representation of James and radical empiricism. I am also not > professional enough to research and prepare my philosophical > opinions with a respectable amount of work to be able to > defend them in the public arena against criticism. I am, in > that sense, an amateur. I am a poseur. My sentences may > seem to have the affectation of a smarter, academic person, > but it is all an act, a show, a grand illusion that I never meant > to create, so much as I started to unconsciously emulate the > writing of people I read. The irony is how much the academic > affectation annoys people here. The tragedy is that I know > not how else to compose myself. > > Matt > > _________________________________________________________________ > Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. > http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/210850553/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
