dmb said: ... In a nutshell, that's what James and Pirsig are saying: that reality is fundamentally interpretive rather than objective. You will soon discover that this view is now so common among thinkers that the objective approach is considered to be quaint and old-fashioned.
[Krimel] Like Tony Stark I as why it is too much to ask for both. I am afraid that either you have consistently misunderstood me or I have been very unclear in stating how I see the whole notion of objectivity. This was a problem I tackled and most resolved for myself as an undergraduate around this time that ZMM was published. I wound up with objectivity as intersubjectivity. When we speak of an "object" we are not talking about something independent of our experience but about the common and constant features of our individual experiences that allow us to talk about it at all. I would never claim that these "objective" features are exhaustive or that they need to be. My point has always been that a serious analysis of these common features (an "objective" approach) helps us to integrate and derive meaning from our experience (an "interpretive" approach). Unfortunately, our discussions almost always get tangled in up in this small point. We strain at a gnat while elephants parade past us. 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
