Bernstein writes:
“A ‘linguistic pragmatism' that doesn’t incorporate serious reflection about
the role of experience in human life...not only loses contact with the everyday
life world of human beings and fails to do justice to the ways in which
experience (Secondness) constrains us... but even more seriously...it severely
limits the range of human experience (historical, religious, moral, political,
and aesthetic experience) that should be central to philosophical reflection.”
Ron commented:
If I read Bernstein correctly, he is pretty much saying that linguistic
pragmatism risks neglecting the "Good" which is the central subject matter and
what we generally mean by the practice of Philosophy.
dmb says:
Yes, I think that's about right. In terms of the MOQ, linguistic pragmatism
relies entirely on static patterns and eliminates DQ entirely. The following
quotes speak in terms that are so close to the MOQ that no translation is
needed, no? I added some brackets just in case.
Shusterman says: “[Dewey] always insisted that our most intense and vivid
values are those of on-the-pulse experienced quality and affect [DQ], not the
abstractions of discursive truth [Intellectual sq]. ...By affirming and
enhancing the continuity between nondiscursive experience [DQ] and conscious
thought [sq] Dewey thought philosophy could enrich and harmonize how we live."
"Work by Mark Johnson and Daniel Stern explores this further. Linguistic
"meaning-making" has a natural genesis in "patterns of experience" which begin
in youth and continue throughout life. There are, Mark Johnson writes,
“pervasive patterns of feeling that make up an infant’s emerging sense of self
and world. Human experience has a feeling of flow[DQ], and differences of
pattern [sq] in this flow are the basis for different felt qualities of
situations.” “What [psychiatrist] Stern identifies as being at the heart of an
infant’s sense of itself and the meaning of its prelinguistic experience [DQ]
also lies at the heart of meaning in an adult’s experience [sq]....We never
abandon or transcend our early meaning-making ways; we only extend and build
upon them.” [Neither DQ nor sq can survive without the other.]
Ron also said:
...Certainly social consensus bounds our meaning of truth but it must not be
neglected that the reason those meanings are agreed apon and valued in the
first place is that they hold and still hold utility and express a
successfulness in the flow of experience, we are prepared to act apon them and
what makes them even more valuable is their constant re-evaluation, use,
utility and reflection. "Truth" to the experience camp is a "living word" for
lack of a better metaphor.
dmb says:
I think that's right. Well said too.
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
