Re: MD Empiricism

From: David Harding (
Date: Mon Dec 06 2004 - 01:18:40 GMT

  • Next message: Scott Roberts: "RE: MD New Level of Thinking"

    Erin wrote:*//*

    > > Scott Roberts wrote:
    > > Unicorns are known not to exist empirically. Do you really want to
    > > do away
    > > with this distinction?
    > >
    > > DH comments:
    > > Actually Unicorns Are known to exist empirically. They certainly
    > > don't
    > > exist empirically objectively but i can describe to
    > > you(subjectively) a
    > > white horse with a horn out it's nose quite comfortably.
    > >
    > > ERIN: interesting question, I'm curious to where the line is
    > > drawn for what is accepted as empirical. Because I "experienced"
    > > a unicorn when I watched Blade Runner. If that is not accepted
    > > as an experience because it wasn't "real", then how is
    > > "experiencing" the Mona Lisa and other art accepted?
    > >
    > What you experienced was an inorganic artisits impresson of a
    > Unicorn,
    > flashing on a television screen. Still no biological white horse with
    > a horn out it's nose. Through the same line ! of thinking, the
    > Mona Lisa
    > one sees at an art gallery is an inorganic artists impression of Mona
    > Lisa and not the biological Mona Lisa who lived many years ago and is
    > now long gone.
    > Yes I am aware of this but I wasn't questioning what the unicorn
    > "was", it was more about wanting to clearly know what "empirical"
    > can be applied to... I did "experience" a unicorn regardless of
    > what it "was" and I thought I was told that experience was what
    > is necessary for it to be empirical.

    What you experienced was an inorganic Unicorn because it "was"
    [valued]. What you experienced and what it was are not two separate
    things, there is no a priori Unicorn that exists independently of
    experience forever and ever. Maybe this is better explained through
    Pirsig's statement..

    "Experience which is not valued is not experienced. The two are the
    same. This is
    where value fits. Value is not at the tail end of a series of
    superficial scientific deductions that puts it somewhere in the
    mysterious undefined location in the cortex of the brain. Value is at
    the very front of the empirical process." Lila pg 365.

    - David.

    MOQ.ORG -
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    Nov '02 Onward -
    MD Queries -

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Dec 06 2004 - 01:50:59 GMT