Hey Ian,
Ian said:
You said your problem is relating these two [mysticism-as-poetry
with mysticism-as-radical-empiricism] ... reconciling Dave's view
with yours. I was simply pointing out that Rorty has already joined
mysticism to experience for you. What (either or both of) you
should focus on was relating poetry to experience, in order to find
the common rhetorical ground.
Matt:
Oh, I see: I guess I didn't see that as my problem. I have no
problem reconciling Dave's view--or rather, radical empiricism--with
my own view. Dave, however, does have a problem with my
reconciliation maneuvers (as he just expressed).
So, perhaps you're right, given what Dave just said about poetry,
though this isn't my problem but rather his: the problem is "radical
experience as poetry." Poetry as the expression of human experience
is something like what Rorty meant, and Rorty's Davidsonian
definition of metaphor was as unintelligibility. Combine the two, and
you have what Rorty meant about mysticism as a kind of poetry, about
mystical experience breaking up old ways of speaking.
Matt
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
