From: Scott Roberts (jse885@localnet.com)
Date: Tue Apr 19 2005 - 20:06:35 BST
Ian,
Ian said:
Spookily, Scott's last line in his most recent mail in the Kant /
Experience thread is
"Of course, [] is an a priori choice [in MoQ] , so the claim for
empiricism also goes."
Am I agreeing with you Scott ? Stranger things have happened, and as
you know I believe in synthesis - building on agreement.
Scott:
Well, I don't know. I've been saying for some time that I reject the claim
that the MOQ is "empirical". The MOQ claim is based in part on the idea that
mystical experience is experience and therefore empirical. I reject that --
not that it is not empirical to the mystic, but that it serves to support
the claim that a metaphysical system, the MOQ, is empirical. In doing so it
devalues the word 'empirical' in terms of its validating usage. In the case
of mysticism, there are two problems. One is that mystics say all sorts of
things -- some talk of an undifferentiated reality, and others talk of being
in the presence of God, and others of other things. The second is
interpreting the mystic. In the message from which you took the last line
above, I was pointing out that even within that most "simple" venue of
mysticism -- Zen -- there can be differing interpretations, which will
result in different metaphysical systems, and there is no empirical test for
choosing between them.
- Scott R
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 Apr 19 2005 - 20:40:09 BST