Hi Struan, John and group:
STRUAN:
This being the case (that most empiricists happily include all manner
of data outside of the biological senses), the specific accusation that
mainstream empiricists (John?) admit only to verifiability by the
biological senses, is quite wrong and Platt's critique is misplaced.
I don't think I specifically accused "mainstream empiricists" of
anything in my discussion of John’s essay However, if I
inadvertently misrepresented them, my mistake and apologies.
I did say--based on what John wrote about the hot stove example,
"organismic reactions" and "testable" statements--that he (not all
empiricists) restricted empirical reality to what could be sensed by
an "organism," i.e., biological senses.
If I've misinterpreted John’s views and if he, like mainstream
empiricists will admit all manner of data outside of the biological
senses to testability, then I’m puzzled as to why he objects to
Pirsig’s statement that "Quality is the primary empirical reality of
world" on the grounds that it is not supported by experience.
I hope John will clarify what he means by "empirical" when he
returns from walking on Hinchinbrook Island which I trust was for
him a direct experience of peace and happiness and, who knows,
maybe a bit of mystic experience thrown in. (-:
Platt
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:11 BST