The darkest question

“…he hoped to avoid the reduction of experience to either “pure ego” or “material substance.” James admitted that “field,” as a vague and necessarily complex metaphor involving a plurality of interacting aspects, would not give “stability.” Indeed, he adds that such an approach results in an “almost maddening restlessness.” James insists, however, that by moving in this direction we gain “concreteness” (T.C., II, 365). He never adequately developed this language of “fields” and “ejects” relative to his doctrine of “pure experience.” This is a real loss, for it should not be overlooked that in contemporary thought, “field” is a highly valuable metaphor in all the major disciplines, precisely because of its ability to convey process and concretion. As an overview, perhaps we should say of his notion of “pure experience” what James himself said in answer to the question, how do finite beings come to be? “Who knows? The question of Being is the darkest in all Philosophy. All of us are beggars here” (S.P.P., 46). Is not the notion of “pure experience,” James’s way of formulating what Parmenides, Schelling and Heidegger look upon as the first, if not perhaps the only question. Why is there something rather than nothing?” — The Writings of William James by John J. McDermott https://a.co/0cODXAOT