Hi dmb,
> Steve said to Matt: > ...Ironically, the direct/indirect distinction that dmb is trying to use to > push against us itself makes the so-called "out of touch with DQ" problem > impossible or at least merely "secondary." If this problem is (as dmb must be > saying) a problem with our concepts, it is merely a "secondary" problem. The > problem of not being in touch with primary experience because of our lousy > ideas can't be a problem for being in touch with primary experience since > primary experience precedes all concepts. ...There can't be any problem in > philosophy as fake as not being in touch with primary experience. > > dmb says: > That's exactly wrong. It's interesting, which is nice. But the problem is > only secondary in the sense that it's intellectual and static, but it > certainly isn't unimportant. I mean, the problem is philosophical in the > sense that our philosophies are serving life badly. Of all the things one > might worry about, that's for real. The problem IS a result of "our lousy > concepts". And the solution will naturally involve getting better concepts. > The whole point of the MOQ, as Paul Turner explained so well, is to expand > and improve rationality. The aim is a root expansion of rationality. That's > WHY we care about DQ and why it's so central. It's the key to the expansion > of our philosophies. Steve: I'm not saying philosophy is unimportant. (The primary/secondary distinction you are attempting to enforce does that in rendering it "secondary.") Ideas _do_ matter, and that's precisely why using the direct/indirect distinction as a weapon against Matt and I doesn't help your case (i.e., You aren't in touch with DQ!). It is indeed our concepts that can be improved (and what we hope to improve with philosophical talk) rather than our intimacy with primary reality. Having the wrong ideas doesn't take one out of reality. If experience is reality then where else could anybody be? Concepts don't take one closer to or further from reality. They are _part_ of reality. To say we have concepts over here and reality over there is to throw us back into the nest and brood of Platonic dualisms that the MOQ and pragmatism were supposed to free us from. The point is that "not being in touch with DQ" can't be what is wrong with our concepts. As a problem with our concepts, a purely conceptual problem, this would amount to a secondary rather than primary problem of not having a good concept of what DQ is. But DQ is supposed to be a placeholder concept for what is lost as soon as you try to conceptualize about anything, especially DQ itself. Best, Steve 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
