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

[Joseph Maurer]

On 7/30/09 11:07 AM, "John Carl" <ridgecoyote at gmail.com> wrote:

Well one doesn't need to be ANY sort of Annie Oakley to take a potshot at
that last statement.  How the heck do you talk about keeping language out of
philosophy?   Talk about absurd.   If you ask me, what we need around here,
besides a good disambiguation of "value" is a good definition of "concept".
 
Reality is a concept.  Concepts are part of reality.  The Jamesian
proposition that the two are ALWAYS discontinuous is of little intellectual
Quality,  In my opinion.  And I don't say "humble" opinion because I am
nothing but a humble woodcutter and all my opinions are humble.
 
Hi John and all,

I am a humble plumber!

For myself I try to keep DQ undefined, SQ defined in my awareness.  Latin
has a nice word [capio] I seize.  When I put the preposition [per] [through]
in front I get [percept].  This reminds me that I can know something.  When
I want to talk about it I put the preposition [cum] [with] in front to get
[concept].  I can¹t talk about my percept since it is personal to me and
hopefully I am unique.  But I assume I know something so I use a [concept]
which approximates what I know leaving out the personal experience.  I know
and I talk, are different formulations.

Joe

> Well one doesn't need to be ANY sort of Annie Oakley to take a potshot at
> that last statement.  How the heck do you talk about keeping language out of
> philosophy?   Talk about absurd.   If you ask me, what we need around here,
> besides a good disambiguation of "value"  is a good definition of "concept".
> 
> 
> Reality is a concept.  Concepts are part of reality.  The Jamesian
> proposition that the two are ALWAYS discontinuous is of little intellectual
> Quality,  In my opinion.  And I don't say "humble" opinion because I am
> nothing but a humble woodcutter and all my opinions are humble.