Hi Ian, You're right. The big problem the dmb sees with Rorty's vocabulary is that it doesn't give us a way to talk about what can't be talked about. [shrug]
Best, Steve On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 2:20 PM, Ian Glendinning <[email protected]> wrote: > Steve, I await a reply with 'bated breath ... > > Dave said to you (in the other "all the way down" thread) > "This mystic reality, Pirsig says, is not mysterious because it's > transcendent or complicated but because it's so simple and direct, so > right-under-your-nose. To speak plainly, reality is just what happens > before you have a chance to think about it. And that is the > non-linguistic reality asserted by radical empiricists." > > Speaking plainly, I think this is clear. > All I would add is ... at the end of the first sentence > > .... so right under your nose, .... until you start to think and/or > talk about it. > > Which is what he and Matt and you (and we) are doing ... talking about it. > Why is it remotely surprising that we can find the words to agree the > bit that comes before language ? > Like Matt, I see the ball in Dave's court. What can be agreed seems > obvious, plain and simple. What's left to disagree is unclear (as you > would expect it must be). > > Ian 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
