From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Fri Oct 31 2003 - 23:01:24 GMT
To David M
Why don't you answer the question?
David M:
OK, you could call it a (reality=quality)/description distinction.
Reality is what you've got before you start the talking, and the talking is
doing interpretation and cutting experience/quality up and saying let's
split this
stuff up, let's call that bit up there sky and this bit down here earth. And
from one you've
got two, and I'm pretty sure that sky and earth are not the same yet I just
turned
the same into sky and earth, and I'm sure this is something to do with
contradictory identity, and it seems like human beings are like gods, but oh
boy
I some how knew what stuff to drink and what stuff to eat long before I
could talk,
and how does that clever stuff happen before clever ever happens? And isn't
big bang all about one It becoming many them, and I'm feeling alienated from
all
this many now, and then doesn't life seem to try and stick everything back
together again,
but doesn't intelligence cut it up again, until I feel really smart and try
to stick it
together again, and welcome to my world, and it's Friday night and I found
where
my wife hid the whiskey again and it's time to go......
regards
David M and his ball catching dog....
----- Original Message -----
From: "David MOREY" <us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2003 5:51 PM
Subject: Re: MD When is an interpretation not an interpretation?
> 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
>
>
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 - 23:05:27 GMT