[MD] DMB and Me

[Ian Glendinning]

Or, it could be as simple as this.

Dave says
"You remain unpersuaded as to the value of the
preconceptual/conceptual distinction ... of radical empiricism"

Matt says
"Yes"

The problem being it's "the value of it" that Matt is concerned about,
whereas Dave has a greater interest in articulating where it fits in
academic philosophical argument. Matt confuses that issue by quoting
academic philosophers and writers in attempting to express his concern
intellectually - whereas his concern is not in fact intellectual.
(Which I think is what Ron and John tried to say ?)

Incidentally - I suspect gav's problem with (his friend) Dave has a
similar basis - Dave being focussed on the "intellectual" nature of
the pre-conceptual / conceptual split. The paradox is clear, no ? (And
not unconnected with Matt's meta-point about non-sophist
meta-meta-philosophy - Socrates clinching argument was to take the
poison to secure his place in the pantheon - beat that Plato.)

Incidentally too, Dave, don't think I'm trying to persuade you you are
wrong .... in fact I think you will go long way to "proving" that a
philosophy of value is "intellectually" intractable, or not. Like any
good experiment, either result could be of enormous value to the rest
of us. It's a very good research aim.

Ian

On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 2:21 AM, Matt Kundert
<pirsigaffliction at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dave logged his repeated complaint that I don't understand
> James, and I logged my typical response (a shrug that I still
> don't get it), but somehow the back and forth continues on
> interminably way past the point at which either of us
> represent ourselves very well.  Since I have nothing new to
> say about James, or this so-called debate/disagreement
> between Dave and I, I wanted to simply reference the last
> interesting thing I did think of to say, contained in a post at
> my site (in case anyone was interested in our nattering):
>
> http://pirsigaffliction.blogspot.com/2010/01/discussion-with-dave-buchanan.html
>
> But, once again in case people don't understand, I am
> confessing that I am not smart enough to understand Dave's
> representation of James and radical empiricism.  I am also not
> professional enough to research and prepare my philosophical
> opinions with a respectable amount of work to be able to
> defend them in the public arena against criticism.  I am, in
> that sense, an amateur.  I am a poseur.  My sentences may
> seem to have the affectation of a smarter, academic person,
> but it is all an act, a show, a grand illusion that I never meant
> to create, so much as I started to unconsciously emulate the
> writing of people I read.  The irony is how much the academic
> affectation annoys people here.  The tragedy is that I know
> not how else to compose myself.
>
> Matt
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection.
> http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/210850553/direct/01/
> 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/md/archives.html
>