From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Sun Mar 14 2004 - 21:53:17 GMT
Hi Matt
I think it is a distinction of great importance.
Highly compatible with what Wittgenstein says about where
the mystical begins. The distinction is not between finding
and making, please try to read more carefully, it is between
the found/made conceots and the experiences we have that we cannot
grasp conceptually, that go beyond our knowledge, this is what DQ is all
about. My distinction poits to that which is truly open and un-closeable.
You are the Platonist! If everything is anthropocentric to you the concept
has no meaning -please explain. If the human is not open then what is the
difference between your solipsism and idealism?
Over to you.
regards
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: "MATTHEW PAUL KUNDERT" <mpkundert@students.wisc.edu>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 11:09 PM
Subject: Re: MD What is really anthropocentric?
> David, my dear ironist playmate:
>
> David said:
> Creativity/agency/Becoming/transformation refuse to become objects of our
understanding. Objects/causality/mechanism/time/space form Kant's
categories, and are inescapably human as he explains, and are truly
anthropocentric. Change/flux/Becoming/quality etc are perhaps the least
anthropocentric concepts we have because they are the least definable, our
experience is clearly divisable into definable and indefinable aspects, the
beyond is both too close and too far away to grasp.
>
> Matt:
> Tsk, tsk, David. Didn't you just tell me that we should move beyond the
distinction between finding and making? The idea of rating
anthropocentricity is just one of those things I think we'll have to get rid
of once we agree with James that the trail of the human serpent is over all.
>
> Plus, you equate the "least anthropocentric concepts" with things that are
"the least definable," which grates against every Wittgensteinian nerve I
have. I think pragmatists like ourselves should agree with Wittgenstein
that everything has a meaning and a definition if we give it one. I don't
think that does a damn thing to the usefulness of certain concepts like
change, flux, Be(com)ing, or Quality, but I do think it stops us from asking
silly questions like, "Which concepts are the least anthropocentric?"
>
> Matt
>
>
>
> 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 : Sun Mar 14 2004 - 21:58:57 GMT