Hi DMB

DMB: It's been a while, but I have addressed this question (about 
pre-conceptual experience) many, many times. No matter how hard I try, the 
answers never satisfy and the question comes back around again. 

DM: Well perhaps the reasonable explanation for this lack of progress is that 
you are either wrong or not very good at explaining yourself. I have no problem 
with the primacy of the flux and change,  this is the sea,  the dominant 
quality of experience,  I only think we need to be able to explain how it is 
possible for concepts to find some stability or regularity in experience,  
small islands though these may be,  I call these experiences pre-conceptual 
patterns but the name is not important. I read James' Radical Empiricism a 
couple of years ago,  I would say he uses the word percept instead,  but he 
also talks a lot about things,  objects and sensations and how he perceives his 
pen,  and how his hat is a real idea when it is an absent hat,  if I talked 
like that round here the SOM flag waving brigade would have a frenzy, James 
takes s pretty good look in that book at realism and what sense it had without 
essentialism or Kantianism,  he seems closer to me than you,  go and 
 read the next paragraph after the one you quote below,  in fact read the whole 
book again,  what does James mean by percept exactly? Problem I have is percept 
is neither found in SQ or DQ according to you,  is James in error?


Note James says shot through AS IF below,  so percepts are not shot through 
with concepts that is only an analogy,  what they are shot through with is 
pre-conceptual patterns,  or proto-patterns,  or some quality that allows 
particulars to stand out from the flux,  so that some bubble,  some wave,  some 
shadow or shape emerges and can be valued can be good or bad,  something to 
desire or flee. I cannot see what case there is for pretending that experience 
is restricted to flux or concept,  radical empiricism is meant to be open to 
all of experience not reducing it to two categories,  odd kind of pluralism 
that,  sort of dogmatism MOQ was designed to combat not encourage. Man up and 
admit that you need to think again.






"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 whats; full 
both of oneness and of manyness, but in respects that don't appear; changing 
throughout, yet so confusedly that its phases interpenetrate and no points, 
either of distinction or ofidentity, can be caught. Pure experience in this 
state is but another name for feeling or sensation. But the flux of it no 
sooner comes than it tends to fill itself with emphases, and these salient 
parts become identified and fixed and abstracted; so that experience now flows 
as if shot through with adjectives and nouns and prepositions and conjunctions. 
Its purity is only a relative term, meaning the proportional amount of 
unverbalized sensation which it still embodies." - William James - Essays in 
Radical Empiricism.


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

Reply via email to