Steve to Andre: Conspicuously absent from hist talk about truth is the notion of adequate correspondence with or representation of reality. dmb and I actually agree upon that much.
Andre: This is not what I mean Steve. I gather you are alluding to the long discussion, now in the archives, wherein the spook of Rorty played a dominant role. No, I am referring to your argument to dmb that: " ...Having the wrong ideas doesn't take one out of reality. ..Concepts don't take one closer to or further from reality. ...The point is that "not being in touch with DQ" can't be what is wrong with our concepts. ..." and relating that statement with your adherence to a pattern called 'causality'. About this we have been talking. Now, I may have stated my position awkwardly by suggesting to you that I mean 'correspondence to...' but I mean, to use the words of Pirsig (who obviously is much better at this than I am) using terms and concepts that are 'more appropriate to actual observation'. (LILA, p 107) And add to this James' notion of 'right' ideas (as opposed to your notion of 'wrong' ideas) as being those ideas that make a difference in experience (and I think that substituting 'value' or 'preference' for 'causality' does). And if 'observing' is not [part of] experience I do not know what is. 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
