From: Ron Winchester (phaedruswolff@hotmail.com)
Date: Tue Feb 15 2005 - 19:07:48 GMT
RON: 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.
ERIN: So you do see a difference between these experiences? Then why not
distinguish them. To me it is like saying dynamic quality and static
quality is just quality so just call them quality. If things are different
in some way then I find it helps to clarify to distinguish them. I would
call both experience but only the latter empirical.
Hi Erin,
I see no reason to categorize the experiences under subcategories of what is
legitimate, and what is not. As far as what you and I call empirical, I
don't think it would ever be agreed on, whether we restricted it to SOM or
not. Even if we denied experiences as acceptable, we could look at one thing
we see, such as the space craft totally differently. There would be no
definition you could come up with for emprical or experience that will be
agreed upon, unless that definition was restricted to only what is accepted
as dictionary meaning. Even then, the dictionary meanings would vary enough
that you could not agree, unless you defined the dictionary we used.
Simple fifth grade English taught us how to understand the meanings of words
in the context in which we read them. As opposed to categorizing, defining,
and explaining them, why not simply read the words are they were written to
mean?
I must come clean and tell you that I see all this attention to the word as
silly; as a knee jerk, emotional reaction. Otherwise, it is as Scott offered
earlier -- reducing philosophy to a game. Either way, I see it as counter
productive to advancing your understanding.
Would you not agree?
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: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 06:14:58 -0800 (PST)
>
>
>RON: 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.
>
>ERIN: So you do see a difference between these experiences? Then why not
>distinguish them. To me it is like saying dynamic quality and static
>quality is just quality so just call them quality. If things are
>different in some way then I find it helps to clarify to distinguish them.
> I would call both experience but only the latter empirical.
>
_________________________________________________________________
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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Feb 15 2005 - 21:32:34 GMT