[MD] Rorty and Mysticism

[118]

Hi dmb,
Good job with the post below.  I think you are right on about the leading
edge.  Quality reigns supreme.  I quite agree, and calling it Quality is
insufficient in a description.  Quality cannot be true, as you say, that
would make it subservient.  Truth has Quality which we personally translate
through experience.  It is that pre-sense which drives, the
intellectualization is secondary and always insufficient, no matter how many
words are used to try to explain.  Like you say, the crux is in experience
which then gets translated into nebulous words, I couldn't agree more.  If
we dip into the mystical much is revealed which science  and rational logic
lacks.  Such buckets only leave one with less than the whole and details
from other philosophies can only follow real experience, not lead it.  The
metaphysics itself is secondary to personal experience.  I am able to
connect Quality directly to theism through experience as James would
suggest.  Both are intellectual constructs coming from the same pool which
is Quality.  Such a thing cannot be countered through mere words, since the
experience is primary.  Bravo, Keep up the good work. You're getting it!

All the best,
Mark

On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 6:21 PM, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com>wrote:

>
>
> This notion of truth is very different from observational science and yet
> it is profoundly empirical. An idea is true when it successfully guides your
> experience, when it works in practice. And I think it's also important to
> see how ideas work WITH the leading edge of experience. As you rightly
> pointed out, "Phaedrus suggests that 'The leading edge is where absolutely
> all the action is. The leading edge contains all the infinite possibilities
> of the future. It contains all the history of the past'." (ZMM,p277) The
> idea used to guide experience will inevitably be derived the the past and
> aimed at the future. The present moment is where all the action is but this
> is going to be aimless without the patterns of the past. To describe the
> nature of experience, James uses images like riding the crest of a wave (cue
> the surf music) or a line of flame moving across a dry autumnal field. The
> idea, i think, is that the nature and quality of the present moment is
> intertwined with where i
>  t's been and where its going. And I think this is a good picture of how DQ
> and sq are constantly working together. Intellectualization is not OPPOSED
> to pure experience. They are not mutually exclusive. The distinction is
> simply that. DQ is different from sq for the same reason that the present is
> different from the past and the future. To use yet another of James's
> images, the stream of experience is different from the conceptual buckets we
> take from it.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
>