---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: David Morey <[email protected]> Date: 8 Dec 2014 23:29 Subject: Re: [MD] DMB on pure experience To: david <[email protected]> Cc:
> Hi David B > > A world of pure experience? So take one of those movies where we count how > many basketball passes are made but fail to observe the gorilla in the > background until we watch a rerun of the video and someone suggests we look > out for the gorilla this time. How would James describe this and would he > avoid suggesting any epistemic gaps? > > David MOn 3 Dec 2014 23:55, david <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > "The first great pitfall from which such a radical standing by > > experience will save us is an artificial conception of the relations > > between knower and known. Throughout the history of philosophy > > the subject and its object have been treated as absolutely discontinuous > > entities; and thereupon the presence of the latter to the former, > > or the 'apprehension' by the former of the latter, has assumed > > a paradoxical character which all sorts of theories had to be > > invented to overcome. Representative theories put a mental > > 'representation,' > > 'image,' or 'content' into the gap, as a sort of intermediary. > > Common-sense theories left the gap untouched, declaring our mind > > able to clear it by a self-transcending leap. Transcendentalist > > theories left it impossible to traverse by finite knowers, and > > brought an Absolute in to perform the saltatory act. All the while, > > in the very bosom of the finite experience, every conjunction > > required to make the relation intelligible is given in full." -- William > > James, A World of Pure Experience. > > > > > > As you can see here, James construes subject-object metaphysics as a > > problem that's existed "throughout the history of philosophy." In other > > words, it's a philosophical problem. It certainly CAN be described in terms > > familiar to fans of philosophy, it should be described in those terms. It > > should be described in terms that non-philosophers can learn by simply > > using a dictionary or encyclopedia. Notice how James lists some of the > > various theories that have been invented to overcome the problem created by > > this "artificial conception of the relations > > between knower and known"? When the subject (knower) is treated as an > > entity that is absolutely discontinuous > > objective entities (known) "all sorts of theories" have "to be > > invented to overcome" the gap between them. Since this gap is between > > knower and known, it is called an epistemic gap. These ontological > > assumptions create a very paradoxical knowledge problem, a truth problem. > > The various theories listed by James, please notice, are theories of Truth. > > (Representative theories put a mental 'representation,' > > 'image,' or 'content' into the gap, as a sort of intermediary. > > Common-sense theories left the gap untouched, declaring our mind > > able to clear it by a self-transcending leap. Transcendentalist > > theories left it impossible to traverse by finite knowers, and > > brought an Absolute in to perform the saltatory act.) That's basically what > > all the isms are all about; crossing that epistemic gap. I believe the > > "representative theories" are a reference to old-school sensory empiricism, > > the common sense theories would be called naive realism (not really a > > philosophical position), and the transcendentalists were quasi-theological > > idealist like Hegel or maybe even Kant, who had introduced the > > transcendental ego to fill the gap. > > > > But James and Pirsig will say that subjects and objects are not entities at > > all, they are not the ontological starting points of reality or the > > conditions that make experience and knowledge possible. They're just very > > handy ideas. They're just thought categories into which we sort experience > > - and so there is no epistemic gap. > > > > Just as Pirsig's rejection of SOM represents a Copernican revolution, > > James's rejection is described as a revolution, as a "radical > > reconstruction of philosophy". And of course it's hard to appreciate their > > solution without first understanding what the problem is all about. > > > > > > How's that? > > > > > > > > > > > > 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
