From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Fri Oct 31 2003 - 17:51:46 GMT
Matt, may I take this one?
Paul:
> Does this create a description/reality distinction or is "a
> description," for all intents and purposes, what pragmatists mean by
> reality? If so, does it follow that describing produces reality?
If you are going to say anything it is a description. Quite happy to talk
about
a description/experience distinction. Reality only going to be useful if you
want
to talk about the contents of non-reality. Certain things are a sort of
on-reality.
Nothing, the future, perhaps the past, what is potential, perhaps what I am
thinking about but am keeping to myself, unless you think you can scan my
brain
patterns. Otherwise, what would you like? Reality/appearance is the main use
of the concept of reality. As Anthony says in his PhD thesis, Newton
suggests that
there is a gap between reality and the sense-data we experience about the
things in reality,
the whole point of SOM is to recognise that the only reality we have is the
one we experience,
everything else is theory, and open to the scepticism that theory cannot
avoid, so you either
take Rorty's version of reality or you take the dualist problems of SOM. As
Heidegger says, it is
very odd that we ever invented this distinction between experience and a
world beyond experience
that we cannot reach.
regards
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Turner" <paulj.turner@ntlworld.com>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2003 10:53 AM
Subject: RE: MD When is an interpretation not an interpretation?
> Hi Matt
>
> More questions!
>
> Matt:
> Pragmatists capitalize the "R" in "Reality" to differentiate it from
> "reality," that general stuff we experience, what's all around us. You
> get a big R Reality by making the appearance/reality split. What the
> split means is that some of the stuff we experience is "appearance" and
> some of it "Reality." When we don't make the distinction, none of our
> experience is either closer or farther away from Reality--its all just
> reality. Distance becomes a poor metaphor (so does "mediation" for that
> matter).
>
> So, pragmatists make assumptions about reality, not Reality.
>
> Paul:
> Does this create a reality/Reality distinction?
>
> Matt:
> It may seem to be splitting hairs, but I think its quite the opposite.
> When we drop the dichotomy that gives us Platonic metaphysics, we drop
> the entire tradition of trying to get our descriptions of reality closer
> and closer to the Correct Description of Reality. Pragmatists don't
> like this tradition because, for one reason, they have no idea how we
> would decide when we have a Correct Description of Reality. Locke
> pointed that out a long time ago and philosophers skeptical about the
> idea of metaphysics have been playing on that same theme ever since.
> Instead, pragmatists simply forward description of reality and whichever
> ones work better, we use.
>
> Paul:
> Does this create a description/reality distinction or is "a
> description," for all intents and purposes, what pragmatists mean by
> reality? If so, does it follow that describing produces reality?
>
> Cheers
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
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 : Fri Oct 31 2003 - 19:05:56 GMT