From: Ron Winchester (phaedruswolff@hotmail.com)
Date: Mon Feb 14 2005 - 03:55:54 GMT
Scott;
I will add that even better than not expanding the use of the word
"empirical" would have been to not use it at all. It's a SOM word, after
all, one that presupposes a split between knower and that which is known.
Hi Scott,
With this I would agree, along with pragmatic, realistic, idealistic . . .
pretty much all the isms, ists, and istics, but is this reasonable? We would
also have to avoid the term experience. Right?
Can this be done? Can you completely avoid all philosophical terms?
What about the next generation of philosophers?
Would it not be more sensible to use the words as they reflect modern
metaphysics? - just a more radical empiricism?
I am wondering where any advancement would come if we kept science to the
"strict empirical scientists?"
It seems to me the problem is with the "modern day empiricists" trying to
"*limit* experience to the sensory-empiric modes."
The prior accepted "real sciences" have been flipped over on their heads.
Would you not agree?
Ron
BTW, if it would rid the world of psychologists, I might agree. :o)
>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: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 15:23:54 -0700
>
>Ron,
>
>Wilber said it much better than I can, even if he at some other point
>didn't
>take his own advice:
>
>"Let me repeat that one of the reasons that ambiguity can and does occur is
>that "experience" can be used in the broad sense ("direct awareness"), but
>then also given a common and much narrower meaning: *sensory* perceptions.
>By consciously or unconciously juxtaposing those meanings, the modern-day
>empiricist can ridicule the idea of knowledge outside experience (so far,
>so
>good), but then *limit* experience to the sensory-empiric modes
>(reductionistic fallacy, category error, etc.). And so to completely
>confound matters, many of the new humanistic and transpersonal
>psychologists, working mostly with intelligibilia and transcendentalia, and
>correctly realizing that their data is indeed experiential (in the broad
>sense), and wishing equal recognition as "real sciences", simply *call*
>their endeavors and their data "empirical", only to find that strict
>empirical scientists simply reject their results, sometimes with
>undisguised
>mocking."
>
>"To avoid these ambiguities, I will restrict the term "empirical" to its
>original meaning: knowledge grounded in sensory experience (sensibilia). I
>suggest humanistic and transpersonal psychologists do the same. Classical
>empiricism was an attempt to reduce all higher knowledge and experience to
>sensory knowledge and experience. The emphasis on direct experience (in the
>broad sense) was the great and enduring contribution of the empiricists;
>the
>reduction of experience to sensory experience was their great and enduring
>crime."
>
>I will add that even better than not expanding the use of the word
>"empirical" would have been to not use it at all. It's a SOM word, after
>all, one that presupposes a split between knower and that which is known.
>
>- Scott
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Ron Winchester" <phaedruswolff@hotmail.com>
>To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
>Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2005 10:41 AM
>Subject: Re: MD Pure experience and the Kantian problematic
>
>
>Hi Scott,
>
>Scott;
>Of course one can't actually know anything without reasoning about what is
>sensed. I thought that was understood, given Pirsig's statement of
>traditional empiricism as "reasoning about what the senses provide".
>
>Ron;
>My appologies; I didn't realize we were considering how Pirsig was
>describing 'traditional' empiricism. When you speak of "traditional
>empiricism," you are speaking in terms of the generally accepted thesis
>prior to 'empiric' experience such as employed by doctors, which was
>considered quackery? - maybe 17th and 18th century empiricism? -or- are we
>extending it to cover 'empiric' experience?
>
>Scott;
>The
>thing I object to is what follows, that "empiricism" be extended to cover
>our artistic, moral, and religious experience. And, just to be safe, I
>repeat that this does not imply that I consider that we can't know anything
>about art, morals, and religion. Just that it serves no purpose to extend
>the word "empirical" to cover them, and causes confusion if we do.
>
>Ron;
>How this extends 'empirical' would be a more modern, generally accepted
>meaning of empiricism to include anything that came from the senses and/or
>'experience'.
>
>So what you are objecting to is artistic, moralistic and religious
>experiences being included in the term 'experience'?
>
>-or- Are you objecting to including experience along with what is derived
>from the senses of which you are allowing empirical to include reasoning on
>what is derived from the bodily senses?
>
>To clarify, I am calling bodily senses that which is separate from mind in
>a
>mind/body dualistic view.
>
>
>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
>
_________________________________________________________________
On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to
get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement
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 : Mon Feb 14 2005 - 03:59:58 GMT