From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sat Feb 12 2005 - 23:54:10 GMT
Scott said to DMB:
Your post is all about recognizing other forms of attaining knowledge. I
agree with all that, and have never said otherwise. But as so often, you do
not read what I say, but go off on a tangent to provide support for
something that I do not dispute. I just, like Wilber, think that the word
"empirical" should be restricted to the form of attaining knowledge
"grounded in sensory experience", and not extended to those other forms.
dmb replies:
If Wilber thinks the word "empirical" should be restricted to refer to
sensory experience, then how do you explain the fact that Wilber describes
such a view as "collapsed", "absurd" and "impoverished empiricism"?
"Moving from the profoundly important notion that all knowledge must be
ultimately grounded in experience, many classical empiricists collaspsed
this to the absurd notion that all knowledge must be reduced to, and derived
from, colored patches. The myth of the given, the brain-dead flatland stare,
the monological gaze, the modern nightmare: with this impoverished
empiricism, we can have little sympathy. ...sensory experience is only one
of several different but equally legitimate types of experience, which is
presicely why mathematics - seen only inwardly, with the mind's eye - is
still considered scientific." Ken Wilber
dmb continues:
If Wilber thinks the word "empiricism" should be applied only to sensory
experience, then how do you explain the fact that Wilber uses that very word
to describe experience that is NOT sensory?
"We have ssen that authentic spirituality is not the product of the eye of
flesh and its sensory empiricism, not the eye of mind and its rational
empirisicm, but only, finally, the eye of contemplation and its spiritual
empirisim (religious experience, spiritual illumination, or satori, by
whatever name)."
dmb continues:
See. Those are Wilber's words. Sensory empiricsm, rational empiricism and
spiritual empiricism. He DOES NOT restrict the word in the way you have
asserted. These quotes from Wilber have directly contradicted your claims
about Wilber. How is that a tangent? How is that anything other than a
direct response to your claims?
Dude, you're killing me here. I've totally defeated your assertions, but you
seem to think I'm off on a tangent. You're so lost that I'm not even angry
or frustrated anymore. I just feel sad about it.
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 : Sat Feb 12 2005 - 23:59:00 GMT