[MD] Philosophy and Abstraction

[Steven Peterson]

Hi Ian,

You're right. The big problem the dmb sees with Rorty's vocabulary is
that it doesn't give us a way to talk about what can't be talked
about. [shrug]

Best,
Steve



On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 2:20 PM, Ian Glendinning
<ian.glendinning at gmail.com> wrote:
> Steve, I await a reply with 'bated breath ...
>
> Dave said to you (in the other "all the way down" thread)
> "This mystic reality, Pirsig says, is not mysterious because it's
> transcendent or complicated but because it's so simple and direct, so
> right-under-your-nose. To speak plainly, reality is just what happens
> before you have a chance to think about it. And that is the
> non-linguistic reality asserted by radical empiricists."
>
> Speaking plainly, I think this is clear.
> All I would add is ... at the end of the first sentence
>
> .... so right under your nose, .... until you start to think and/or
> talk about it.
>
> Which is what he and Matt and you (and we) are doing ... talking about it.
> Why is it remotely surprising that we can find the words to agree the
> bit that comes before language ?
> Like Matt, I see the ball in Dave's court. What can be agreed seems
> obvious, plain and simple. What's left to disagree is unclear (as you
> would expect it must be).
>
> Ian