[MD] DMB and Me

[david buchanan]

DMB said to Steve and Matt:
If we reject radical empiricism based on the neopragmatist's rejection of traditional empiricism, we have inadvertently rejected the rejection.



Matt replied:
...I don't think I'm "rejecting radical empiricism".  ... I also don't know why I need to pick up the "preconceptual empirical reality" term in my own "conceptual arrangement." Does not finding a need to use "preconceptual empirical reality" in my philosophy necessarily mean I'm rejecting radical empiricism?



dmb says:

If you see no need to pick it up and decide there's no need to find a place for it in your conceptual arrangements, then yes, of course that means you reject it. I'd say that's pretty much the definition of "rejection" in a situation like this. (I just pictured you telling "pure experience" that you want to see other concepts, how you just want to friends. And "pure experience" sobs and cries, of course, because rejection hurts.)

But I don't think you're rejecting it. That's was my point. You've been treating radical empiricism as if it were positivism, as if radical empiricism was a form of the very thing it rejects and replaces. What you're rejecting is not radical empiricism. To reject that, you'd have to distinguish it from traditional empiricism and then grapple with its claims. 

It seems odd to construe the concept's value in terms of your needs and your conceptual arrangements. You seem to be suggesting that it's a matter of personal preference, as if we can take it or leave it, depending on our interests and purposes.

But I'm talking about Quality in a forum for the discussion of the metaphysics of quality. In that sense, our interests and purposes are pretty clear and not too fancy. This appeal to some hypothetical personal project that doesn't need Pirsig's central term does not fly, Mr Kundert. Don't you realize how audacious to say you can find no use for Pirsig's main idea at MOQ.org? It wouldn't be so outrageous if you had a bunch of good reasons or something. But you don't care enough to even give her a good look. 

That's why James is of interest here, you know. Since Pirsig equates his DQ with James's pure experience, we can understand the MOQ's central term better by looking at radical empiricism, which is the context in which "pure experience" is used. Anyone interested in the MOQ should think that's very useful, regardless of their other interests. If you're posting here at all, let alone for years, then your interest has already been demonstrated. Who spends time and energy on things they find useless or on things they don't care about? It just doesn't add up, Mr Kundert. I'm not buying it.




  














 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail is redefining busy with tools for the New Busy. Get more from your inbox.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID27925::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:032010_2