[MD] now it comes

[Krimel]

Krimel said to dmb:
...The world of experience and of consciousness is continuous not discrete.
Why do you feel the need to forcefully repeat arguments I have already made?
Shouldn't it be clear but now that we are not disagreeing about this? ...
Fuck this I am skipping the boring and irrelevant quotefest. Seriously Dave!
Maybe you could skip the feigned outrage and my alleged insincerity and just
answer simple questions in your own words.  Radical empiricism, blah, blah,
radical empiricism, blah, blah, blah... You stick to a single line of
thought, trapped in the first quarter of the last century. ... But maybe a
restatement of the question would help. You claim that James claims that SOM
is "just" a concept derived from experience. I claim that anything we say is
a concept derived from experience. My question is how should we decide among
concepts?


dmb says:
You're skipping the quotefest and screaming "fuck you" at radical empiricism
(blah, blah, blah) but you're also demanding an answer?

[Krimel]
If I went "FUCK YOU!!!" ...that would be screaming. But even here you
misquote and misunderstand me. I said: "Fuck this..." Admittedly the F is
capitalized but that was an instinctive nod to the rules of English
composition not an attempt to increase volume. After all I think I have
demonstrated many times that I know where the volume controls are AND CHECK
THIS, MOTHER FUCKER, MINE GOES ALL THE WAY UP TO 11.

[dmb]
Well, dude, that was your answer. Your question doesn't really make any
sense and I'm not claiming what you say I'm claiming in the preface to your
question. 

[Krimel]
"...The world of experience and of consciousness is continuous; not
discrete."
You disagree with this?

[dmb]
So all I can do is try to explain what SOM actually means to James, why he
saw it as a problem to be overcome. There is no way to avoid radical
empiricism in explaining that because his attack on SOM is laid out in the
essays on radical empiricism. 

[Krimel]
I am past caring what you say about what James says. I have been asking you
to demonstrate the "cash value" of your convictions.

[dmb]
But how you can dismiss it as a boring and irrelevant quotefest is beyond
me.

[Krimel]
I find it boring and irrelevant because it seems aimed of convincing me of
something I am already convinced of: 

SOM - BAD.

Over the years all you have convinced me of is:

AWGIs - Mostly Harmless

[dmb]
In the course of our conversations in a long-term view, how many times have
your responses actually duplicated and/or directly addressed the textual
evidence I provide? How many times did you pay any real attention to the
answers I gave? Not many, that's for sure. Wouldn't surprise me one bit if
that NEVER happened. I certainly do not recall any such treatment.

[Krimel]
It seems like only last week that I devoted considerable time to Bricklin's
"Siousness". I even affirmed some of what you said. But that's ok, my memory
fails me more and more these days too. 

[dmb]
What the first step to take in deciding between two rival concepts?
Understanding those concepts, of course. You want to know how James defeats
SOM by saying that subjects and objects are just concepts? Read that boring,
irrelevant quotefest again, but for real this time. 

[Krimel]
You continue to miss the whole question. I am not asking you to clarify
James' or anyone else's position on some bit of metaphysical arcania. I
don't care who said what and I care ever less who you think said what.

Speaking of shouting is RADICAL EMPERICISM!!! your only answer to every
question? At least on defense you have two tools in your bag: SOM and
reductionism. 

The issue I am asking about is the notion of concepts arising from and being
secondary to percepts. Are you saying this is or is not what James claims?

If it is, isn't he saying that Marsha is right: "It's all just a bunch of
stupid "conceptualization" the bigger they come, the harder they fall..."

Or something slightly less butch...