From: Ron Winchester (phaedruswolff@hotmail.com)
Date: Tue Feb 15 2005 - 03:31:58 GMT
Hi Scott and Erin,
ERIN: I'm glad you appreciate what I am doing:-P But now we have some
context for your nutty idea---- Is there a specific experience you want the
word empirical expanded to-- is the Virgin Mary riding a motorcycle in your
backyard again? Just kidding!
Ron: This is where I see the difficulty Scott is having with empiricism.
Empericism is limited to the senses and experiences. The vision of the
Virgin Mary would not be an Pirsig used empirical experience as Pirsig does
not see anything 'Out there' as a mystical experience. Where empirical fits
in to the experiences, which lends itself to the senses, is with the
intellect, imagination, and art in that these things help you to see the
world in a new light. Mystical experiences are limited to enlightenment. It
does not come down from the heavens and present itself to you; the
enlightenment is simply a new way of looking at the world and yourself. It
could be an extreme change in your understanding. One of these extreme
changes, mystical experiences, comes from Quantum Physics. The bolder we
thought was empirical is not so empirical any more. The nothingness that we
don't understand was proven by Quantum Physics, and even before then when
scientists theorized that the nothingness is where everything came before
the 'Big Bang'. The nothingness then was theorized as pure energy, or high
energy, and everything that we are, everything that the world is, is just an
adjustment (balance) down to low energy.
Where I see this Quality fitting in, is that Quality is that inherent
knowledge that is revealed to us from stripping away the baggage of the
prejudices that have been built up into us from those who limited emirical
to the subject and object metaphysics, in that nothing could be unless it
was first an object.
Where the mystical experience comes from is from realizing that we don't
know everything, and we open ourselves to new experiences that are
unexplainable through our past or current limited knowledge. Magnetics and
energy would be an example of this. All the way down to the electron, energy
is balanced through magnetics, but the electron currenly shows no signs of
magnetics. Empiric knowledge would be limited to what we know, even through
intellect, would mean that the universe is not balanced and harmonious; we
know this because we have tested it, and found it to be true. We deny any
further discoveries as possible.
I think Scott is right, that the MOQ does not depend on empiricism, and it
does not claim to depend on empiricism, and in fact combines empiricism and
pragmatism, but not in its historical terms. The same would hold true of
matter. We still use the term matter, but we accept that matter is made up
of both matter and non-matter.
Realists can twist the term idealism around to mean whatever suits their
case, and idealists can twist the term reialism around to suit whatever
suits their case. I'll stop there.
It seems to be the whole idea of Western Philosophy to twist the meanings of
words around in a negative way in order to prove the superiority of your
philosophy. I just don't see where it is beneficial, much less feasible to
limit or deny the use of the word empirical just because it fits your
current philosophy to do so.
The problem I see with 'empirical' from what I have read so far is it is
used along with mystical experience, in the idea that a mystical experience
can be considered empirical. Where the problem comes from is that you see
the mystical experience as other worldly, or passed down from a source of
authority; outside your mind from another mind, or master mind.
When mystical experience denies this other worldly, then there is no problem
within the use of empirical as empirical simply means it comes from the
senses or expriences. Each individual can have their own exprience, and it
can be empirical to them. Whether its interpretation is emprical to society
depends on the static patterns, and whether it works its way in.
Whether or not a vision can work its way into the static patterns depends on
the culture in which it is offered; visions are religion based. A vision of
the Virgin Mary may advance society for Christians, but it is not going to
do much for the rest of society.
I must ask, if the visions of the Virgin Mary have been experienced since
the beginning of Christianity, is there any expiriments that have tested
these visions? It would seem to me, by now, there would be some proof of
these visions being empirical.
The difference between what is empirical and what is not is whether or not
it can work its way though the static patterns. If you stick to past static
pattern proofs of empirical, then there can be no advancement in your
understanding. You are stuck with your accademic or religious truths as have
been passed down by the elders.
If I see a space ship, then realize it can be explained by the bending of
light rays in ice crystals in the atmosphere, I am not going claim the space
ship was empirical, but the vision of the space ship was empirical, just the
understanding changed. If I meet a spaceman, then this spaceman is going to
be empirical to me, but I have very serious doubts if the rest of the world
is going to see my new found friend as empirical; whether or not he can ride
a Harley. :o)
Lots of rambling, but I'm sure no better understanding of where I am coming
from. Huh?
Ron
>From: Erin <macavity11@yahoo.com>
>Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>Subject: Re: MD Pure experience and the Kantian problematic
>Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 15:34:56 -0800 (PST)
>
>
>
>
>ERIN: LOL
>damned if you don't define something damned if you do
>(or should I say confuse)
>
>RON:
>I'm glad you aprreciated what I was doing here. If you can expand the
>meaning of metaphysics, then I see no reason why you could not also expand
>the meaning of empirical to better reflect modern metaphysical views.
>
>ERIN: I just thought it was funny because I went from a post from Marsha
>getting upset with Scott with not defining something he thought couldn't be
>defined to your complaint to Scott of defining something too much or
>something along that lines.
>
>There are different kinds of experiences. I think it is useful to limiting
>the meaning of empiricism to help distinguish experiences. I am not going
>to relist all the examples Scott gave of experiences that would clearly not
>be empirical to me but if you want to expand empirical to all of them then
>answer these questions for me
>
>1) do you really not see a difference in these types of experiences?
>
>2)if you do see a difference then why not distinguish them?
>
>RON: I am wondering where any advancement would come if we kept science to
>the "strict empirical scientists?"
>BTW, if it would rid the world of psychologists, I might agree. :o)
>
>ERIN: I'm glad you appreciate what I am doing:-P But now we have some
>context for your nutty idea---- Is there a specific experience you want the
>word empirical expanded to-- is the Virgin Mary riding a motorcycle in your
>backyard again? Just kidding!
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar – get it now!
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/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 : Tue Feb 15 2005 - 03:36:01 GMT