[MD] (Fwd) Re: John Carl Critiques Pure Experience:INST01

[John Carl]

On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 7:53 PM, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com>wrote:

>
> John said:
>
> Well I did expect more of a response to my attack on Empiricism; Dave's
> been pretty quiet lately.  He's either thinking hard and trying to come up
> with a response or he's throwing his hands up in disgust and pursuing more
> interesting endeavors. We'll soon see!
>
> dmb says:
>
> I haven't been thinking or throwing up my hands, just camping in the
> Rockies again. We were at 9000 feet on a very clear, moonless night. I'd say
> we saw some stars but that doesn't really describe it. It's more like we
> were out in space with them. Best sky I ever saw. Awesome.



John]

Good on ya, mate.



>
> John said to Marsha:
> "I define concept as "patterned brain stimulation" - which just about
> includes everything. Other people define "concept" as "words". Thus I do
> believe in their non-conceptual experience, I just don't believe in mine."
>
> dmb says:
> That sort of thing just doesn't work. I mean, if you're altering the
> meaning of the central terms of radical empiricism then your attack becomes
> irrelevant, which is to say it's not an attack at all. In that case, it's
> just an attack on a fiction of your own making.


John]

Probably a pretty common occurrence in philosophy, now that you mention it.
  The main thrust of my attack goes a bit furthur than that one statement,
of course, but I'll grant a few days to catch up.

For now, please define "concept" in as Purely Jamesian terms as you can and
I'll try and wrap my brain around that.  But so far, I haven't had much luck
trying to figure out "pre-conceptual experience" nor in  getting any logical
answer.




> It's just a misunderstanding of radical empiricism. You're perfectly free
> to disagree with James's concept of "concept" but an attack upon it does
> require that you first understand how he's using the term and what it means
> within radical empiricism.


John]

As far as I can see, it's W. James who is goofing us with his terms:

Kreuger]

On this conceptualist or "intellectualist" line, as James refers to it, all
thinking and experience involves concepts. No concepts, no experience. James
instead argues that the phenomenal content of embodied experience *as
experienced* outstrips our capacity to conceptually or linguistically
articulate it.

 In other words, James insists that many of our basic experiences
harbor *non-conceptual
content*. That is, many of our experiences have a rich phenomenal content
that is too fine-grained and sensuously detailed to lend itself to an
exhaustive conceptual analysis.

John]

That bit gives me the problem.

dmb]


> This is not an arbitrary requirement to join some club, of course, it's
> just a logical necessity. Criticism of an idea is only valid to the extent
> that we actually understand that idea. To continue with the war metaphor,
> you can't locate and hit the target unless you know what it looks like.


John]

Agree.  I won't wrestle with James over "concept", just as long as he gives
me a definition I can "take aim at".  Otherwise I'm naturally reduced to
wrestling with my own interpretation.

dmb]


> If you like I could jump into the running commentary you offered up on the
> article written for the William James Society and show you some spots where
> you seem to be misreading the thing.


John]

Bingo.  That's the place I was looking for some feedback.

dmb]


> But I'd like to respond to your stuff about Idealism and Ken Kesey too.
> You're contributing some really interesting posts, John, and they're fun to
> read as well. I'm glad you're hanging around here.
>
>
John]

Well that makes two of us, and I'm glad you're here to hang around.



> John said to Bo:
> Quality is ultimately the "big picture" - an Idealistic framework - and
> radical empiricism is the reductionistic mechanism thought (by some) to
> prove/produce its existence.
>
> dmb says:
> No, the metaphysics of Quality is the big picture and it's an intellectual
> framework, just as all metaphysical systems are. Quality is direct, everyday
> experience, not a mechanism and certainly not a reductionist mechanism.


John]

My assertion is that the MoQ is better understood as an extension of
Absolute Idealism rather than Radical Empiricism, with empiricism being the
reductionist attempt to capture Quality.

It's not Quality that gives me problems. Quality is fine.  It's Jame's Pure
Experience that I wanna look at more closely.  Maybe you're right, maybe
once I am enlightened to the meaning of the concept, "concept", I too will
"get it" and join your fun cult - the AwGi club.  :-)

John





>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>