From: Scott Roberts (jse885@localnet.com)
Date: Sun Feb 06 2005 - 05:11:10 GMT
DMB, Ron et al,
Scott said to Ron:
The point is that Matt and I don't buy this expansion. It is certainly the
business of a philosopher to shift the meanings of key words, but then the
marketplace (other thinkers' reactions) has to accept it. I don't buy it
for two reasons. The first is that it makes the old meaning of empiricism
lose value. With the old meaning, if I claim something, and someone else
says
"I don't believe you", then I can say, "well, go look (or perform this
experiment)". With mystical experience, the "go look" becomes "go join a
monastery, sit in meditation for a few years, and maybe (there are no
guarantees), you will see for yourself". The difference is too big to be
covered by one word.
dmb replies:
You don't BUY the expansion of the word "empirical"? But if we are talking
about making claims based on experience, what else can we call it?
Scott:
I would call it making claims based on the rational evaluation of a
collection of anecdotal evidence. There is nothing inherently wrong with
this -- all that we know of history is known in this way.
dmb said:
I'd like
to remind you that epistemological pluralism came BEFORE the limited
empiricism of the enlightenment, BEFORE Modernity and SOM. This is one of
the key features of the perennial philosophy and goes quite nicely and
coherently with the levels and with mysticism. In any case, it is NOT that
Pirsig or Wilber have expanded the meaning of the word "empiricism" so much
as Modern SOM has collapsed it.
Scott:
Actually (I went back to re-read what he said in Eye to Eye -- p. 42-43)),
Wilber restricts his use of "empirical" to the Eye of the senses. And he
does so for the same reason I do -- because it has a clear meaning if used
to refer to sense experience, but results in ambiguity if it is extended to
cover all experience. A SOM materialist and I can agree that the
double-split experiment provides empirical support to the wave/particle
nature of light. We cannot agree that a mystical report provides empirical
evidence for anything.
dmb said:
Epistemological pluralism is a restoration,
not an innovation. The fact that you and Matt are sticking with SOM's narrow
epistemological framework is, I think, just one more instance of exhibiting
that Western blind spot. Apparently, it can't be cured by reading Pirsig's
books or even by repeated corrections by by jerks like me. Bummer.
Scott:
I don't deny the validity of mystical reporting. I just don't want to call
it empirical. And -- see above -- neither does Wilber.
Scott defended the point:
Actually, I was very loosely paraphrasing Wilber, but my argument does not
depend on any particular means of gaining enlightenment (nor does Wilber
think that entering monasteries is necessary). The point is there is no
straightforward recipe for verifying a mystical claim, and I think
"empirical", when used to back up philosophical claims, becomes devalued
unless the recipes are straightforward.
dmb says:
How "straitforward" is the empirical experience of splitting an atom? By
your reasoning, there can be no advanced physics because it takes time to
acquire the knowledge and skills to preform such experiments. Is that your
postion? That the only valid knowledge is that which can be obtained by any
schlubb to bothers to glance in the right direction? Ridiculous. I think
you're bending over backwards to deny a very sensible idea; If you want to
see for your self, then find out how to search and then go take a look. I
think it takes a rather weird and tortured sort of logic to deny something
so clear and simple as that.
Scott:
The procedure for splitting an atom has been written down, and anybody with
the time and money can follow it through and get the same results. The
procedure for experiencing satori is not the same sort of thing.
Scott said:
The second reason is, what if I forget to specify that they join a Zen
monastery, but instead join a Christian one, and they come back and say
"You were wrong, I didn't experience "no-thing-ness", I experienced Christ
within me.". That is, the variety and interpretation of mystical experience
is very wide. Is it empirically evident that we can speak to the spirits of
the dead, since Swedenborg (a mystic that Pirsig mentions) did? Why is only
"pure, undifferentiated experience" regarded as empirical and not life
after death, reincarnation, channeling, ESP, Heaven and Hell (Swedenborg
says
his conversations happened in Heaven)? All this and more is reported by
mystics, with the claim that anyone can have these experiences.
dmb replies:
Yes, there is a wide variety of static interpretations and depictions of the
mystical experience. So what? The MOQ is a form of Philosophical mysticism,
one that adopts the perennial philosophy, which accepts and celebrates that
variety of expressions. The only ones who have a problem with that are the
ones who insist on a single exclusive version, which is one of the major
reasons Pirsig rejects theism, because theisms are exclusive. As for ESP,
channelling and the other occultish new-agey Swedenborgisms, you can try to
verify them if you like, I guess. Good luck there. You'll need it.
Think of it like this. There are tons of UFO "sightings" and people continue
to report UFO abduction "experiences". There is not a shread of "physical"
evidence, no bodies and no ships. And so I think a reasonable person has to
include these reports in an account of the world. They are not "verifiable"
in the sense that we take them at face value, as evidence for the actual
existence of proctologists from space, but it is evidence of something going
on - psychologically if nothing else. Its worth looking into even if we
fully expect to find no evidence of alien life forms or their anal
intentions. Personally, I think its the symptom of a collective dream, some
energy from the collective unconscious expressing itself in contemporary
forms. Anyway...
Scott:
I fail to see how this or anything further you say answers my objection. The
way we accept or reject mystical reports is different from the way we accept
or reject claims made on the basis of sense experience (which is in turn
different from the way we verify mathematical proofs). That does not mean
one throws out mystical reports. I am merely saying that we should keep the
word "empirical" to mean that verification can be done through the senses in
order to keep the two situations distinct.
- Scott
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 : Sun Feb 06 2005 - 05:54:37 GMT