From: Scott Roberts (jse885@localnet.com)
Date: Fri Feb 11 2005 - 18:11:47 GMT
Ron,
Scott said;
Any time you want to address the reasons I gave for objecting to Pirsig's
expansion of the word "empirical", let me know. Those reasons have nothing
to do with SOM vs. MOQ, and the reasons apply to James' expansion as well.
They are about keeping the useful distinction between readily sharable
experience and private experience. This does not imply that private
experience should be dismissed, just that it is useful to distinguish
between them.
Ron said:
What I feel you mean is that it is more useful to distinguish between
generally accepted experience, and experience that is not so generally
accepted. It is my belief that the generally accepted experience is
restricted to historical guidelines. This being the case, then you are
placing the metaphysics of static patterns above the metaphysics of Quality.
Or, you are speaking in terms of philosophy?
Scott:
I don't know what you are getting at with your last question. I am certainly
speaking of the use of the word "empirical" in philosophical discourse.
As to equating it with "generally accepted experience", no, that is not what
I meant. I meant limiting it to knowledge that is validated by means of the
senses (vision, hearing, taste, smell, touch). You seem to be thinking that
I am claiming that only empirical knowledge, according to the unexpanded
sense of empirical, is valid for philosophical purposes. I have repeatedly
denied this, but here again you are saying "you are placing the metaphysics
of static patterns above the metaphysics of Quality". Look at my recent
posts to Marsha. None of that is empirical, but it is what I am putting
forth as my philosophy.
Wilber [in Eye to Eye] identifies three kinds of inquiry:
empirical-analytic (the Eye of the Flesh)
mental-phenomonological (the Eye of the Mind)
transcendental (the Eye of Contemplation)
All three are sources of data and knowledge, and all three (in my opinion,
as well as Wilber's) are legitimate input to one's philosophizing. So all I
am saying is that the MOQ does not need to expand "empirical", and in doing
so, creates unnecessary confusion, as Wilber said.
Ron said:
All I ask is that you distinquish between the two, or acknowledge the two
are related, so I will know how to join in.
Scott:
Which two are you referring to here? Maybe the following examples will help:
"The light is red" -- empirical
"People stop at red traffic lights" -- empirical
"Electrons have both wave-like characteristics and particle-like
characteristics" -- empirical
"The universe started with a Big Bang" -- not empirical (there is empirical
data to support this claim, but as a claim it also invokes some nonempirical
assumptions, for example that physical laws remain constant throughout space
and time).
Now there is some fuzziness. For example, is "life forms evolve" empirical?
Strictly speaking, no, since I don't have a time machine by which I can see
dinosaurs come into and out of existence. But I would call it an empirical
claim, since the fossil record is empirical, and a theory that life forms
evolve makes a hell of a lot more sense of the fossil record than
creationism. Perhaps better is to call it, as Wilber says, an
empirical-analytic claim. One might say the same for the Big Bang theory,
though here I think the claim is weaker. A completely nonempirical claim,
that I happen to adopt, is "form is formlessness, formlessness is form".
Ron said:
The question I might have is Do you believe metaphysics and/or philsophy
should be tied to the modern views of physicists?
Scott:
Metaphysics that is contradicted by empirical data should be rejected.
Modern physics provides lots of empirical data. It also involves lots of
interpretations of that data. A metaphysician may well reject some or all of
those interpretations, but it can't ignore the data.
- Scott
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 Feb 11 2005 - 18:18:51 GMT