This will be a continuation of the past meeting "Grounding Discourse in Experience." (Compare the previous meetups description to the following.)
When we see a red triangle, experience duty, or understand a conversation, how are these 'experiences' grounded more originally in our discourse? Until we need speak, or can speak, of these things distinctly as 'this red triangle', 'this duty', 'this understanding', in what way do we actually 'experience' any of these things?
To clarify: before I have a manner of speaking about 'red', that is, before such a dicourse is needful or available to me in some way, when I look at the red triangle what is it that particularly makes it red? The red is not significant *in a certain sense* until it's relevant to a possible discourse, it seems. How can we understand this better?
In this meeting we will have an opportunity to consider what it is to ground our experiences in discourse, and to consider what else we may *say* experience is grounded in (forms, sensations, &c). There will be room to ask what an experience is and why we ever discuss it.
(With the term 'discourse' I am tending towards the Greek word 'logos' which we can discuss in the meeting. It may be helpful for us to think bio-logy, anthropo-logy, physio-logy, &c, as all being primarily discourses rather than bodies of knowledge.)
There is no required reading.