[MD] Does the MOQ invalidate Subjectivity?

[David M]

> Matt:> There is, however, no short way of explaining how I get there.  But 
> let's
> try this: "pre-intellectual" is code for "pre-linguistic".  Pirsig is
> talking about a primary experience that is before language, before it can
> get its dirty hands on it.  The notion that language is something that we
> secondarily apply to a primary experience, language as the making of
> distinctions on a smooth, undistinctioned pure experience, is what Hilary
> Putnam calls the "cookie cutter view" and Donald Davidson calls the
> "scheme/content distinction, the third and last dogma of empiricism".
> Scheme--content.  Person--world.  Subject--object.
>

Hi Matt

Just noticed this, and uncovers something unrecognised about our
earlier debates.You seem to think that the pre-intellectual/linguistic
experience is 'undistinctioned' but why should it not be full
of distinctions that are experienced but not named? Take
sweet and sour, and take a brain scan of a pre-linguistic child
if you want to see the distinction. Obviously langauge both recognises
natural-quality distinctions and creates new higher level ones.

David M