[MD] to dmb

[John Carl]

Marsha,

Plainly,  only a Cleveland harbor effect *would* make the following
significant.

> "...James had condensed this description [of radical empiricism] to a
> single sentence. 'There must always be a discrepancy between concepts and
> reality, because the former are static and discontinuous while the latter is
> dynamic and flowing.' Here James had chosen exactly the same words Phaedrus
> had used for the basic subdivision of the Metaphysics of Quality." (p. 365)
> >
>

 A coincidence of terms is no "sign" of anything.  Big mistake, dave, (and
RMP, sorry to say)  Quality is where subject and object MEET.  "The
entanglement between" not the "eternal divorce from".

The only reality we'll ever know is our conceptualization.  To say "there
must always be a discrepancy" is just as impossibly ridiculous as "there is
never a discrepancy".  Sometimes there is a lot of discrepancy (low quality)
and sometimes there is none or little (high quality)  What is fundamental is
not the discrepancy, but the quality.


> "The Metaphysics of Quality is a continuation of the mainstream of
> twentieth century American philosophy. It is a form of pragmatism, of
> instrumentalism, which says the test of the true is the good." (p. 366)
> >
>

Absolutely.  And I mean that "Absolutely" rhetorically as well as
literally.  Good, as reality's fundament, is the test of everything.  Like,
what good does radical empircism do anybody?  None whatsoever that I can
see.  That's how I know it's not true.

John the helpful, productive and fun