[MD] Direct Experience

[Ham Priday]

David, Platt, Gav, Ron, et al --

DMB says::
> Dewey talked about immediate experience in terms of "undergoing",
> "suffering" and "enjoying" rather than terms like "consciousness".
> We see this same distinction in the MOQ. Direct experience is called
> pre-intellectual while cognitive knowledge of the sort we associate
> with self conscious awareness is in the realm of static quality.

Yes, we do see an attempt to separate consciousness in Pirsig's 
epistemology.  We also see "consciousness" avoided in the pragmatic theories 
of James and Rorty.  In fact, the last century saw a deliberate effort to 
stigmatize the concept of "selfness" so as to bring subjectivity more in 
line with scientific objectivism.

> As a radical empiricist, Dewey went to great pains to show how direct
> experience is just as real as the conceptualizations that follow. In other
> words, having an experience and knowing that you had an experience
> are two different things.

I have not read much of John Dewey, except his educational strategy as a 
heuristics specialist.  The philosophy researchers are unanimous in their 
opinion that his theory of cognizance was "nonfoundational", in that Dewey 
sought to equate consciousness with experience, thereby "playing down" the 
notion of Self as a unique entity.  When David intimates that we associate 
cognitive knowledge with "self-conscious awareness", he is doing the same 
thing.  However, he's not speaking for ordinary people who don't equate 
"cognitive knowledge" with "self-awareness".  Knowing oneself as the Knower 
is not the same as knowing facts and specifics derived experientially. 
Rather, it is knowing awareness as my CONSCIOUS IDENTITY.

While David seems to be supporting the Self = Knower concept in his last 
sentence, it doesn't come across as primary to experience, which may 
indicate that he's beholden to a "selfless' philosophy.

Thanks all,
Ham