From: Erin (macavity11@yahoo.com)
Date: Tue Feb 15 2005 - 22:39:29 GMT
Ron Winchester <phaedruswolff@hotmail.com> wrote:
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.
RON: I see no reason to categorize the experiences under subcategories of what is
legitimate, and what is not.
ERIN: I already said I don't agree with interchanging verifiable and validity/legitimacy
RON:
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?
ERIN: I don't know what you are trying to say here
RON: 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.
ERIN: I will choose what is silly to spend time on and what is helpful to advancing my understanding. If you find it is not helping your understanding then ignore the thread.
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 : Wed Feb 16 2005 - 02:32:56 GMT