[MD] Experience, essentialism, physicalism

[David M]

DMB

I agree with DMB that we do need this distinction in the MOQ,
it being pragmatic and realist rather than pragmatic and irrealist
like Matt, Rorty, etc.

Hey Matt, you did not answer my question about
whether there is a non-linguistic aspect to the taste
of an apple?

DM

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "david buchanan" <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 1:38 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] Experience, essentialism, physicalism


> Matt, Anthony and all MOQers:
>
> Matt said to Anthony:
> Concepts of postulation are "deduced" and concepts of intuition are
> "immediately apprehended."  The latter we given by experience, the former 
> we
> deduce later from the experience.  Between Quine's attack on the
> analytic/synthetic distinction and Sellars' attack on the Myth of the 
> Given,
> I don't think such a dichotomy can survive.  I'll ask one question to try
> and cast suspicion on the distinction: is the distinction between concepts
> of postulation and concepts of intuition a concept of postulation or a
> concept of intuition?  This is the same question that killed the logical
> positivists strong principle of verfication.
>
> dmb says:
> I'd be interested to hear Ant's reply to this. As I understand it, an 
> attack
> on the analytic/synthetic distinction would not be relevant to the
> difference between concepts of intuition and postulation. If, in terms of
> the MOQ, intuition is DQ and postulation is sq whereas analytic and
> synthetic are both sq. And to the extent that the attack on the Myth of 
> the
> Given is an attack on SOM, that's not relevant to the MOQ's central
> distinction either. To answer your positivist-killing question, I simply
> point out that the verbal distinction itself is static, but it is asserted
> on the basis of experience. The deductions and descriptions have to be
> static, of course, but these distinctions do not create or produce that
> experience. In the MOQ, that would be approximately backwards.
>
> Matt said Ant:
> So, what needs discussion between us is whether or not we need this
> distinction between concepts of intuition and concepts of postulation.
>
> dmb says:
> If they equate with DQ and sq, then I'd say we need them to make sense of
> the MOQ...
>
> Anthony said:
> The paradox in your concluding paragraphs i.e. "we do have to chuck the 
> idea
> that qualia is non-linguistic", "that the 'non-linguistic' [such as 
> Dynamic
> Quality] is created in a language game" and "is a function of us talking
> about them, they are a function of static intellectual patterns" 
> completely
> causes havoc with the internal logical consistency of the MOQ. ...I 
> remember
> Pirsig mentioning last Summer that the components of the MOQ are very much
> intertwined so it is very difficult to radically change one part without
> undermining the whole lot.
>
> Matt replied:
> Well, I'll agree that they are intertwined, but I've been arguing for a 
> long
> while that it looks like Pirsig intertwined two insoluable philosophical
> traditions.  Reliance on a distinction between concepts of intuition and
> postulation are one occurence.  I think that reliance is SOMic.  I think 
> the
> other half of Pirsig, the pragmatist half, is constantly at war with the
> half that uses those kinds of distinctions.  Going one way or the other 
> will
> undermine the other half.  I think emphasizing the types of arguments 
> you're
> wielding against my pragmatism undermine's Pirsig's own pragmatism.  And 
> on
> the other hand, I do think the pragmatism I'm wielding does undermine part
> of Pirsig.  But I think of it as purging Pirsig of stuff he didn't need
> anyways.
>
> dmb says:
> I'm pretty sure that the attack on the distinctions of the positivists is
> not relevant to the distinction between intuition (DQ ) and postulation 
> (sq)
> and I don't think the MOQ would survive its removal. I think you've
> misconstrued this central distinction as something its not and are 
> rejecting
> that rather than the actual concepts Pirsig is using. I certainly hope you
> and Ant have that discussion about "whether or not we need this
> distinction".
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Don't just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
> http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
>
>


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


> 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/