DMB said to Steve and Matt:
If we reject radical empiricism based on the neopragmatist's rejection of
traditional empiricism, we have inadvertently rejected the rejection.
Matt replied:
...I don't think I'm "rejecting radical empiricism". ... I also don't know why
I need to pick up the "preconceptual empirical reality" term in my own
"conceptual arrangement." Does not finding a need to use "preconceptual
empirical reality" in my philosophy necessarily mean I'm rejecting radical
empiricism?
dmb says:
If you see no need to pick it up and decide there's no need to find a place for
it in your conceptual arrangements, then yes, of course that means you reject
it. I'd say that's pretty much the definition of "rejection" in a situation
like this. (I just pictured you telling "pure experience" that you want to see
other concepts, how you just want to friends. And "pure experience" sobs and
cries, of course, because rejection hurts.)
But I don't think you're rejecting it. That's was my point. You've been
treating radical empiricism as if it were positivism, as if radical empiricism
was a form of the very thing it rejects and replaces. What you're rejecting is
not radical empiricism. To reject that, you'd have to distinguish it from
traditional empiricism and then grapple with its claims.
It seems odd to construe the concept's value in terms of your needs and your
conceptual arrangements. You seem to be suggesting that it's a matter of
personal preference, as if we can take it or leave it, depending on our
interests and purposes.
But I'm talking about Quality in a forum for the discussion of the metaphysics
of quality. In that sense, our interests and purposes are pretty clear and not
too fancy. This appeal to some hypothetical personal project that doesn't need
Pirsig's central term does not fly, Mr Kundert. Don't you realize how audacious
to say you can find no use for Pirsig's main idea at MOQ.org? It wouldn't be so
outrageous if you had a bunch of good reasons or something. But you don't care
enough to even give her a good look.
That's why James is of interest here, you know. Since Pirsig equates his DQ
with James's pure experience, we can understand the MOQ's central term better
by looking at radical empiricism, which is the context in which "pure
experience" is used. Anyone interested in the MOQ should think that's very
useful, regardless of their other interests. If you're posting here at all, let
alone for years, then your interest has already been demonstrated. Who spends
time and energy on things they find useless or on things they don't care about?
It just doesn't add up, Mr Kundert. I'm not buying it.
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail is redefining busy with tools for the New Busy. Get more from your
inbox.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID27925::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:032010_2
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
