I like my experience like I like my wimmun- a little impure. What good is pure experience if you have to be an infant, insane or severely brain-damaged to "experience" it? Seems to me the pragmatic value of radical empiricism is non-existent. Something I've complained about for years and nobody has ever given me a satisfactory answer.
I think Steve's comment about "pragmatic backsliding is entirely apropos. JC On Nov 29, 2011, at 9:09 AM, Steven Peterson <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi David, > > On 11/28/11, David Thomas <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 11/28/11 4:19 PM, "Steven Peterson" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Steve >>> Consulting mystical reality to tell us what is true and false >>> is a possible demand that I suppose someone could make of us (and a very >>> silly demand that would be (pray on it!)), but mystical reality itself >>> makes no such demand. >> >> Dave: >> As I understand it there is no mystic reality per se. The mystic claims that >> that through mystic experience(s) one can "directly experience" (ever seen >> this phase before) reality as it really IS. They also claim experience like >> I have on a day to day basis is always somewhat removed from reality as it >> really is. Primarily because of my lack of attention and my intellect >> getting in the way. > > Steve: > That is my understanding, but that all sounds very Cartesian to me. > For a pragmatist to adopt that view seems like backsliding into the > sorts of dualisms (appearance-reality, absolute-relative, in here-out > there, essential-accidental) that pragmatism (hopefully) cured us of. > > > Dave: >> Pirsig says that in ZaMM, "Quality is a direct experience independent of >> and prior to intellectual abstractions." (Lila-pg 33). Later on under the >> MoQ, "Dynamic Quality is the pre-intellectual cutting edge of reality." >> Although RMP doesn't say it, could it be said that under the MoQ DYNAMIC >> Quality is direct experience independent of and prior to intellectual >> abstractions? I think it could. Others here have claimed that this "direct >> experience" is the same as James' "pure experience" and pointed to this >> quote: >> >> "Pure experience¹ is the name which I give to the immediate flux of life >> which furnishes the material to our later reflection with its conceptual >> categories...."(William James from A Pluralistic Universe). >> >> Often overlooked is what directly follows this quote. >> >> ".....Only new-born babes, or men in semi-coma from sleep, drugs, illnesses, >> or blows, may be assumed to have an experience pure in the literal sense of >> that which is not yet any definite what, tho ready to be all sorts of what; >> full both of oneness and of manyness, but in respects that don¹t appear; >> changing throughout, yet so confusedly that its phases interpenetrate and no >> points, either of distinction or of identity, can be caught" (William James >> from A Pluralistic Universe). > > Steve: > Where I think this stuff becomes especially problematic is when you > add the notion that we need to get ourselves in touch with reality as > it really is beyond mere appearances. That's the old Catesian > Platonistic junk that we are better off without--the real reality out > there behind a veil. > > > > >> >> Which RMP, with no reference to James, eerily echoes: >> >> "Phaedrus saw that not only a man recovering from a heart attack but also a >> baby gazes at his hand with mystic wonder and delight. He remembered the >> child Poincare referred to who could not understand the reality of objective >> science at all but was able to understand the reality of value perfectly. >> When this reality of value is divided into static and Dynamic areas a lot >> can be explained about that baby's growth that is not well explained >> otherwise." (Lila-pg 58) >> >> So what is being said, IMHO, is the "highest quality", "pure" experience of >> reality is, except for mystics, outside the realm of normal perception or >> only available through special training or traditions. Ie Buddhism or some >> such. > > Steve: > The question here is the value for this sort of talk for doing > epistemology. Is this "pure experience" the true method for justifying > beliefs? How is that supposed to work? Is he mystic's knowledge about, > say, the best form of government more certain that other people's > knowledge about such questions for having access to "pure experience"? > How is "pure experience" used in the process of justifying a belief > such as the superiority of democracy over fascism? I just see dmb's "I > have something that you don't have" talk about radical empiricism as > doing absolutely no epistemological work when it comes to practical > questions and what is true about the world or what we should do to > improve it. > 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
