:-)
On Jun 7, 2011, at 2:44 PM, John Carl wrote: > That was a good one, Marsha. Shows the value in wading through my old > unreadthreads when we get a stormy day like today and I'm off work. I like > the way this guy thinks and expresses himself, but you know that. Here he > makes explicit a criticism of James that I've never formulated so rigorously > myself, but recognize as a problem I've had with him from day one in an > intuitive way and a reaction against him. Specifically what caught my > attention was what the author himself labels "crucial" that "neither > conceptual framework is inherent in the nature of pure experience". > > This is key! Thanks for bringing it. > > John > > On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 11:34 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > >> dmb >> >> Please note the statement "James seems to have fallen into the trap of >> reifying his own concept of a field of consciousness" : >> >> "The asymmetry in James's view of mind and matter may be due in part to >> his advocacy of a "field theory" of consciousness, in contrast to an >> "atomistic theory," which he vigorously rejects. I would argue, however, >> that the nature of consciousness does not intrinsically conform either to a >> field theory or an atomistic theory. Rather, different kinds of conscious >> events become apparent when inspected from the perspective of each of these >> different conceptual frameworks. Using James's field theory, one may >> ascertain an individual, discrete continuum of awareness; and using the >> atomic theory one may discern within the stream of consciousness discrete >> moments of awareness and individual, constituent mental factors of those >> moments. Thus, while certain features of consciousness may be perceived >> only within the conceptual framework of a field theory, others may be >> observed only in terms of an atomistic theory. This complementarity is >> reminiscent of the relation between part >> icle and field theories of mass/energy in modern physics. The crucial >> point here is that neither conceptual framework is inherent in the nature of >> pure experience. James seems to have fallen into the trap of reifying his >> own concept of a field of consciousness, and this may have prevented him >> from determining, even to his own satisfaction, the way in which >> consciousness does and does not exist. >> >> (Wallace, B. Alan, 'The Taboo of Subjectivity: Towards a New Science >> of Consciousness') >> >> >> > 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 ___ 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
