From: Scott R (jse885@spinn.net)
Date: Tue Apr 15 2003 - 23:58:56 BST
Matt and Johnny,
> Johnny said:
> Are you saying, and/or does Matt agree, that there is no DQ, or just
> disavowing that any of us can see it in it's primary context? Can we come
> close to seeing it in a pure sense, or is any context as perverted from
> objectivity seeing DQ as any other?
>
> Matt:
> I'd like to say first that I like your formulation in the second
> post. These two questions I see as confused for a pragmatist to say, so I
> wouldn't say them. I would say that there is DQ. I have no qualms about
> that. However, I would not say that none of us can see it in it's primary
> context because I think that implies that there is a primary context,
> committing yourself to what Derrida calls "logocentrism." So, I would say
> that we can't see DQ in its primary context because there is no primary
> context. Saying that we can't see DQ in its primary context raises the
> question of mediated experience, a question pragmatists bypass.
What would you say to saying that DQ *is* the primary context, and that is
why it cannot be "seen"? (This leaves Quality as being beyond the
context/in-context distinction.)
- Scott
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Apr 15 2003 - 23:59:29 BST