tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1247368540862329841.post2520726187128819810..comments2023-06-07T08:50:33.280-05:00Comments on Immanent Transcendence: A Re-Introduction to How Nature Thinkskhadimirhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12960757465883819380noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1247368540862329841.post-55489195371910655582012-05-17T10:33:52.393-05:002012-05-17T10:33:52.393-05:00DMF,
The intro vs. get-to-the-point problem is li...DMF,<br /><br />The intro vs. get-to-the-point problem is likely to haunt me always. I have already edited it somewhat to streamline it. I am hoping to have a book jacket or something that can get to the point.khadimirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12960757465883819380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1247368540862329841.post-58333587842547547672012-05-17T06:57:57.718-05:002012-05-17T06:57:57.718-05:00afraid I can't come up with a simple solution ...afraid I can't come up with a simple solution to all of these tangles/tensions so I would say go with what you have, when it gets reprinted you can alway write a new preface. Will be interested to see how it is received and hope you find some open minds to respond.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1247368540862329841.post-36154144573009833722012-05-15T10:11:51.396-05:002012-05-15T10:11:51.396-05:00p.s., I don't think I was clear.
When I'm...p.s., I don't think I was clear.<br /><br />When I'm "serving the tradition," I am speaking to those who may not want to go outside of the tradition to smuggle-in philosophies to appropriate. Contemporary philosophy has become so compartmentalized that people can often easily do that in some traditions, but pragmatism is sufficiently alien to the other traditions such that doing so creates many inconsistencies that are all too frequently swept under the rug. I chastised pragmatists in my article for doing this with Mark Johnson. Too much contemporary philosophy is pastiche--so much so that not thinking in that way seems "wrong" to many. Crossing traditions responsibly is difficult and time-consuming.<br /><br />I say this because some, though I think not you, take me as circling the wagons, whereas I really intend intellectual honestly and scholarly precision. Just ask my Asianist scholarly friends about hey their tradition gets appropriated ... they have long since strained their eye-rolling muscles.khadimirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12960757465883819380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1247368540862329841.post-56463272401613725022012-05-15T10:04:51.252-05:002012-05-15T10:04:51.252-05:00DMF,
The Deweyans are horribly wrong on that poin...DMF,<br /><br />The Deweyans are horribly wrong on that point, which is something I have been discussing with amiable senior scholars for years. The phenomenological branch of pragmatism, especially Deweyan, was killed off some decades ago. Aside, first I am trying to serve the tradition, and second I will speak to philosophy at large in subsequent works. My blog has already hinted at the second.<br /><br />The selling point becomes obvious once the reader gets there, but I have to get them there first. That's the hard part.khadimirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12960757465883819380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1247368540862329841.post-55042234037081325682012-05-15T09:57:33.776-05:002012-05-15T09:57:33.776-05:00as to the first response I would say that a Deweyi...as to the first response I would say that a Deweyite likely already sees Dewey as providing such answers/solutions and there are other philosophers who do as well these days, but with the 2nd comment I can see that you are getting to the selling-point of your work, not sure about the patience/lure question so let me sit with it a bit.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1247368540862329841.post-22865554884469842762012-05-15T08:43:28.256-05:002012-05-15T08:43:28.256-05:00Here is the next paragraph.
As much as Dewey has ...Here is the next paragraph.<br /><br />As much as Dewey has so many answers to contemporary problems, he left so many glaring questions. He rarely dwelled on the negative implications of his model. The possibility of reflective and cognitive control of the direction of thought occurs only within a “problematic situation,” when our activities meet resistance, and we “feel a difficulty.” We stub our toe, are confronted with angry protesters, or are rebuked for racist/sexist/gender insensitivity, and then we reflect. If desiring organizes our activity and may become reflective only in the face of resistance, then to what faces are we sensitive? Dewey’s recognition of the material, bodily, social, cultural, and other factors that constitute mind is not followed by an explanation of how a person without a virtuous character may overcome bad habits, which is a fatal oversight since “habit” functions as “transcendental” in the Kantian sense for Dewey, as noted by Victor Kestenbaum. A habit is a “condition for the possibility of experience” in the sense that a physiological “habit” coordinates sensori-motor perceptual action and associates phenomenal qualities with meanings such that appearing a certain way is perceived as “being a no-good bum.” Habits function as limits of meaningful experience that we do not experience as such, and without a hermeneutic rehabilitation of our own habits as described by John Stuhr, then we may be at the mercy of the arbitrariness of our upbringing. Dewey and I disagree with Aristotle when he claimed in the Ethics that nothing could be done for the character of a person who was poorly educated. Transformation is possible.khadimirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12960757465883819380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1247368540862329841.post-4951145637401808382012-05-15T08:41:34.062-05:002012-05-15T08:41:34.062-05:00DMF,
You are correct; I prefer synthesis to exege...DMF,<br /><br />You are correct; I prefer synthesis to exegesis, and I am very consciously following the continental tradition of philosophy-by-way-of-commentary. This is not new to pragmatism, but is less overt than in continental. Unlike most who do this, I provide heavy citation and careful analysis as I want to provide continuity to the tradition.<br /><br />A response to your question is the next section. Part of my editing is to make the prose more accessible to both a general audience and to pragmatist scholars. The original text presumes intimate familiarity with Dewey's text--which is far from the same thing as intimiate familiarity with his commentators. Those who have the latter without the former raise my blood pressure when they are insistent on a disputed textual point.<br /><br />Does the phrase "The unification and continuity of metaphysics and phenomenology is the background goal of this work and situates a foregrounding question." not suggest one reason to read the work? I have been going back and forth since I was writing my dissertation about how fast to "get to the point" in a book introduction. The problem is that if I wade in early, then it is extremely likely that I will be misread even by fellow scholars. I've just seen this too many times to ever think otherwise. Hence, for me the question is how much patience will I ask.<br /><br />I would greatly benefit from your advice.<br /><br />My target audience, btw, are scholars familiar with or interested in pragmatism.khadimirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12960757465883819380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1247368540862329841.post-91368166177645155602012-05-15T08:29:12.555-05:002012-05-15T08:29:12.555-05:00jh, my impression from your blogging is that you a...jh, my impression from your blogging is that you are not just doing exegetical work with Dewey but really fleshing out some gaps in his work and this isn't explicitly here, and if I have already read Dewey (as I imagine a possible/interested reader of the this text might) than I would want to know why I should also read this work.<br />-dmfAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com