Greetings, Dan.
> > Dan: > > You're missing the whole point, John. The hot stove analogy is meant > to show experience BEFORE conceptualization. That's what I was trying > to tell you when you were going on about it being language all the way > down. The beginning of experience has nothing to do with prior > concepts or narratives of existence. It is pure and direct. Only after > do we mutter oaths or sighs. > > Well I'd say you're missing my whole point then, because I'm arguing against the idea of "pure and direct" in describing any experience whatsoever. All experience is dependent upon prior experience and a cognition that frames the experience meaningfully. Without this meaning, there is no experience. If a tree falls in the forest, without a hearer, then it makes no sound, is what I claim. Without conceptualization, there can be no experience. The very essence of experience is a realization of a something which requires a concept of some kind. Too bad you don't like to get into technical philosophical discussion, Dan, or we could really get into this. Especially in light of Matt's recent postings on Sellars' Ontological Nominalism, which seems pretty close to what you're pushing here, and exactly what I'm arguing against. Take care, John 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
