From: Ron Winchester (phaedruswolff@hotmail.com)
Date: Sat Feb 12 2005 - 13:41:42 GMT
Ron;
Let's do this one small step at a time.
You sit on the beach and look out at the horizon. The horizon is set in a
perfectly straight line. This would be empirical? The horizon you are
looking at is a straight line?
Scott:
Not until I ask "is it a straight line or not". Before then it is just the
horizon.
Ron;
You just used the intellect to determine whether or not it is a straight
line. The intellect is not one of the senses you used in your definition of
what empirical is.
Would you conclude from your intellect that the 'earth is flat' or the
'earth is round' more empirical?
>From: "Scott Roberts" <jse885@localnet.com>
>Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
>Subject: Re: MD Pure experience and the Kantian problematic
>Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 23:16:53 -0700
>
>Ron,
>
>Ron;
>Let's do this one small step at a time.
>
>You sit on the beach and look out at the horizon. The horizon is set in a
>perfectly straight line. This would be empirical? The horizon you are
>looking at is a straight line?
>
>Scott:
>Not until I ask "is it a straight line or not". Before then it is just the
>horizon.
>
>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 said: 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.
>
>Ron;
>The straight horizon is empirical data, but the fact that the horizon is
>not
>straight is also empirical data. We know the earth is round, and therefore,
>the horizon we are looking at is curved; not straight; not so empirical.
>
>Scott:
>I fail to see the problem. The line that we see is straight. This results
>from seeing it from a great distance. We know that the earth is round
>because we see ships apparently sinking slowly into the sea as they leave
>the shore, yet we know they don't sink. All empirical with some analysis.
>
>Ron said:
>If we keep the term empirical defined as you define it, it causes some
>confusion.
>
>Do you not think?
>
>Scott:
>No, at least not from this example. And why doesn't this same confusion, if
>there is any, arise from any other use of the word "empirical"? On a whole
>other level of discourse, I would agree that overall there can be a lot of
>confusion over what is empirical and what is not, and I could see doing
>without it completely. All I am complaining about here is that if one is
>going to use the word empirical it is better to keep it to mean knowledge
>that is gained and validated through the senses, rather than saying, in
>effect, whatever I know is empirical. That just makes the word redundant,
>and makes conversation with non-MOQists difficult.
>
>- Scott
>
> >From: "Scott Roberts" <jse885@localnet.com>
> >Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
> >To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
> >Subject: Re: MD Pure experience and the Kantian problematic
> >Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 11:11:47 -0700
> >
> >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
> >
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
>http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
>
>
>
>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
>
_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
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 : Sat Feb 12 2005 - 13:47:55 GMT