On Nov 17, 2010, at 1:15 PM, Matt Kundert wrote: > > 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
Hi Matt, I think poetry does reflect the mystical experience. At least, far better than the blah, blah, blah philosophologizing about it, my own nonsense included, at least, thus spoke Zarasthustra. And I don't think of Rorty, or those who find him interesting, as a fiercest enemy. I hope you will say more for those who are interested in hearing from your literary perspective. Marsha ___ 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
