[MD] Re MoQ and SOM differences

[David M]

Hi DMB

You are odd. Anyone genuine would have emailed back and said yes we need to
look at contemporary debate as well as look at  "Classical American 
Pragmatism"
-if it is contemporary did it get this status of classical instantly? (you 
smoke screen puff blowing clown!) I don't think so!
Sure anthologies (of already published material) often contains a little 
contemporary
comment as well so yes that is something you did mention but my point is 
that I think the overecoming
of Platonism and dualism is also underway in other spheres of contemporary 
thought:
Bhaskar/Maxwell in philosophy of science, M.Archer in sociological theory, 
various post-modern
thinkers like Stuart Sim, D.Cupitt in theology, etc, as well as US 
pragmatism which to
a large extent has made a wrong turn in neo-pragmatism losing touch with 
Dewey's situating
of experience in nature and over-emphasising language dependence, a mistake 
European
phenomenology has fallen into less completely it seems to me, but even I 
cannot survey
the whole field of philosophy in both the US and Europeso I may not be 
recognising others
who are making new moves in the US such as Hildebrand who you know I am 
aware of, & thanks
for not acknowledging that anyone might have a common interest as you yet 
again!

I get the impression that if someone tries to add something to the debate 
that you know very
little about and have never read you feel like someone is lessening your 
glorious dispensing of
illumination. Chill out Dave, these rather amatuer attempts to chase people 
off with content less
arguments and groundless complaints might end up leaving you as the most 
glorious shining star
in a very empty corner of the internet. Look forward to the usual back 
tracking or reinterpretation
of what you were actually saying in the first place that you usually come 
back with. I really don't
want to know. How about telling us whether any of these contemporary 
commentators have
something interesting to say about where pragmatism can go in the future? 
Here's some Cupitt
for you asking where a post-Platonic, post-theistic,post-belife (Cupitt's 
terms) religion might go:

"there is no great and unique religious object, but we can appropriately 
take up religious attitudes
towards bare pre-linguistic Be-ing, towards the whole fountain of actual 
Being and towards the
brightness of everything"
from Philosophy's own Religion

Shine on you crazy diamond....

DM