[MD] Radical empiricism and the anti-empiricism of postmodernradicals

[Case]

[dmb]
This exchange has been moved from the "Blink" thread. I have a little 
project going here, so forgive me for changing the subject back to 
pragmatism. All I can do is hope you find it interesting.

[Case]
Sorry Dave, but I frankly do not understand these labels or the
relationships and squabbles among them. Pre's and post's and philosophies
with lots of adjectives in their names just make my head spin. I tend to be
interested in ideas themselves not how they are labeled. So I will chime in
where I do find it interesting but please don't take offense if I just
ignore something. I able plenty able to give offense in areas I attend to.

dmb replies:
Right. I'm saying at-one-ment obviates the whole idea of correspondence. Its

not like one retains the distinction between self and world and then claims 
they are the same. Instead, the distinction between them is seen as a 
concept rather than a natural feature of a pre-existing reality. This is not

to say that it is unreal, exactly, but the status is lowered from 
metaphysical starting point to a secondary, conceptual reality. You know, 
experience (Quality) creates subjects and objects instead of the other way 
around.

[Case]
How can you say that losing the distinction between self and world is any
less of an illusion than retaining it? They both seem merely orientations to
an underlying reality which is not strictly knowable from either
perspective.

Case said:
I do think it is a mistake to think that we can gain a greater understanding

of our self or the world by simply playing tinker toys with logical 
constructs or focusing exclusively on our private experiences. I surely 
don't think that's what James did for example. He combined the best of 
philosophy and science and showed that when the two approaches are combined 
extraordinary things result.

dmb replies:
Don't get me wrong. None of this is supposed to be anti-scientific and I
suppose we'd agree that any philosophy that fails to agree with scientific
data is a steaming pile of shit. 

[Case]
I agree that the task of philosophy is to give a broader meaning to the
facts and theories of science. Philosophy should serve science. It would
seem that the love of wisdom has suffered from this reversal of historical
roles.

[dmb]
At the risk of insulting your intelligence, 

[Case]
Relax dude, I really don't think that is possible.

[dmb]
I think the basic idea here is that the positivist project was aimed at
getting rid of religious and metaphysical beliefs and thought they could do
so by eliminating all statements and assertions that could not be verified
by "objective" reality. 

[Case]
Much is being made about the evils of SOM. Still I know that is how I
conceive of the world and I suspect you do to. Pirsig doesn't offer a way to
eliminate this distinction; he says it can be subsumed under a metaphysical
of value. Or as I like to think of it, it is consistent with a Taoist
metaphysics.

It is not so much that a Kantian notion of things in themselves is false. Or
I guess I don't know specifically what Kant said about this that is so
objectionable. I thought he said they were beyond our perception and our
knowing. It seems to me that all Pirsig does is not so much reject this as
ignore it, which is fine because there is not much else to say about them. 

As for the idea "objective" means there are two I like. One is
inter-subjective or our shared ideas about reality. It is the idea that we
can describe our inner perceptions is such a way and with varying degree of
precision so that others can share our descriptions. This mean that
Objective reality is consensual reality. A second would be a view of
objectivity that acknowledges individual perceptions but seeks after
patterns and rules that apply regardless of point of view.

[dmb]
As I understand it, this is the background info on where we find ourselves
today. This is where the intellectual paralysis comes from. 

[Case]
Maybe you could say a bit more about "intellectual paralysis" where do you
see this? Because when I look about I tend to see intellectual
hyperactivity. 

[dmb]
As a result we have a postmodern situation wherein the Modern perceptual
model is recognized as having failed and yet the assumptions remain in
place. The postmodern, poststructualist situation leads almost every serious
thinker to believe that they are subjects living in a phenomenal world, but
that there is no way to get at it objectively....... 

[Case]
Snip, snooze, see above.

[dmb]
Let me give you an example. Keith Jenkins' "Re-thinking History" was among 
the readings assigned last week. He tells us that, in the light of what 
Rorty and Foucault say, history "is anything you want it to be" (13). 

[Case]
I do find this interesting and I think I agree with it but I have no idea
what those other guys say. I have stated in several threads that I think the
past is just as uncertain as the future. Our perception of the past is
dependant on our ability to recall it. Even recollection of our personal
past is highly suspect. Memory, my own at least, is recorded at fairly low
fidelity. Collective memory in the form of documents depends on what residue
from the past lingers in the present.

Even from the stand point of SciFi. In order to travel back in time one
would have to past through some kind of rewind of previous events. Since the
present is the culmination of innumerable quantum decision points all of
uncertain nature moving backward in time require them to be replicated in
reverse. This does not seem likely to me.

Students of history tend to see what they are looking for and I suspect the
best approach to history like anything else is to try to see it from as many
perspectives as possible and look for convergence.

Hmmm, I guess I found more of this interesting than I first suspected.

Case