Jayne S Docherty wrote:
|> > For what it's worth, I am an ecologist, and I walk around in the woods a
|> > lot studying nature.
|>
|> For what it's worth, I am an ecologist also. This is not, however, how
|> you learn about these things.
|
|It would seem that the first speaker (James?) is working out of an
|empiricist assumption that we can somehow perceive what is "out there"
|without importing our own cognitive construction of the world into the
|observation process. I would disagree with this and would argue that our
|process of "observation" is very much shaped by our expectations...
Well, not really. It was more in reply to what I perceived a s asimilar
suggestion. That is, I was told to read the native people's etc. to
understand nature. That implies that the native peoples were doing
something other than "walking around in the woods." They may have been,
and they may have some insight. However, I think quite a bit of
"knowledge" on some levels comes from direct experience. I would NEVER
suggest, however, that that "knowledge" is not laden with preconceived
notions on the part of the observer. That still does not dismiss the
value of direct experience, espeically in a person that recognizes the
"observer biases."
Jim
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Feb 5 11:22:55 MST 1995
Date: Sun, 5 Feb 1995 13:28:12 -0500 (EST)
From: Jayne S Docherty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: James Roper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: views from nature
On Sun, 5 Feb 1995, James Roper wrote:
> Jayne S Docherty wrote:
>
> |> > For what it's worth, I am an ecologist, and I walk around in the woods a
> |> > lot studying nature.
> |>
> |> For what it's worth, I am an ecologist also. This is not, however, how
> |> you learn about these things.
> |
> |It would seem that the first speaker (James?) is working out of an
> |empiricist assumption that we can somehow perceive what is "out there"
> |without importing our own cognitive construction of the world into the
> |observation process. I would disagree with this and would argue that our
> |process of "observation" is very much shaped by our expectations...
>
> Well, not really. It was more in reply to what I perceived a s asimilar
> suggestion. That is, I was told to read the native people's etc. to
> understand nature. That implies that the native peoples were doing
> something other than "walking around in the woods." They may have been,
> and they may have some insight. However, I think quite a bit of
> "knowledge" on some levels comes from direct experience. I would NEVER
> suggest, however, that that "knowledge" is not laden with preconceived
> notions on the part of the observer. That still does not dismiss the
> value of direct experience, espeically in a person that recognizes the
> "observer biases."
I am talking about something which does not come under the heading of
"observer biases" -- a notion which still seems to imply that if we could
get past those biases, we could understand what *really* is "out there".
There is no "direct experience" of the world. It is all mediated to some
as yet unclear degree through our conceptual expectations...
Jayne
