[MD] Another parallel

[Ian Glendinning]

Here goes ... here is that old snippet, and my own summary today.
http://www.psybertron.org/?p=2488

"Radical Empricism takes the idea of empricism so far back from
conceptualized models of the world as to take it back beyond even any
preconceptualized, atomistic (greedy reductionist) view of the world
as objects. A kind of “total” empiricism, (immediate or
pre-conceptual) purged of any vestige of pre-conception. It is taking
the preconceptions of objectification out of experience (out of both
the senses of experience and the phenomena experienced)."

Regards
Ian

On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 8:47 AM, Ian
Glendinning<ian.glendinning at gmail.com> wrote:
> Matt, DMB,
>
> DMB suggested.
> "a digression, a diversion or even an excuse to avoid the actual
> substance and meaning of radical empiricism."
>
> In a way large chunks of the recent dialogue between the two of you
> has seemed like this recently. You've both (we've all) been on
> learning curves, but see this as part of the US pragmatist tradition,
> which has crossed paths with the Greeks and mysticism along the way
> .... It's good to recap and recall the large measures of common ground
> and a return to what is important.
>
> Some months ago I captured one snippet of dialogue between you that I
> felt did (almost) settle on an understanding of "radical empiricism" -
> part of my own learning curve.
>
> Recently we got close with "immediate" and "pre-conceptual"
> experience. (I find "pure" unhelpful.)
>
> One issue with arriving at a working understanding is "time" and the
> problem that as a word "immediate" can have a temporal element, as
> well as a proximal sense. Matt you did advertise you were going to say
> something on time here - once we had overcome the immediate vs
> evolutionary historical perspectives ?
>
> Another issue is the "intellectual" confusion for some ... that being
> maybe "pre-intellectual" is a deliberate thoughtful "intellectual"
> choice, not a denial of the intellect in favour of the social &
> biological. Just intellect recognizing it's own limitations, and when
> to hold back on the analytical bent.
>
> Shall I dig out that old snippet, or can you continue to build ?
> Regards
> Ian
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 10:48 PM, david buchanan<dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Matt said to dmb:
>> When I see you saying things quite contentedly that a year before you were hammering me for saying, I find that frustrating.
>>
>> dmb replies:
>> Why would something like that frustrate you? I would be flattered by that. Doesn't it mean that I'm learning something, maybe even learning it from you?
>>
>>
>