Nick - > > No, Steve. Absolutely not. No Way. > Whether FriAM's server or my mailer's mode of larding vs your mode of reading it, you misattribute these words to me when they were in fact Dave's... what follows *after* that, namely the Lakoff/Nunez reference and discussion of that perspective is mine.
Carry on! - Steve > > > How about an assertion that there is *_A_* Reality beyond > *_"ordinary"_* experience; with "ordinary experience" being the > half-dozen or so overt sensory inputs (sight, sound, balance, touch, > taste, smell) we typically associate with experience > > > > No. There lies spiritualist blather. Having pried me away from my > monism, you are driving me back toward it. */Ex hypothesi/*, what > ever your R. B. O. E. might be asserted to be, it is, in fact, a > construction of experience. Because, we agreed, there is no other > source, right? Now, if you want to introduce God’s Love or Extra > Sensory Intuition, or the Wisdom of the Spheres, we can talk. But e > ven if you stipulate additonal senses, beyond the six, they are still > contributing to experience. Unless you are willing to stipulate some > other source of knowledge beyond experience, we have to admit that > while some experiences, because of their capacity to integrate others, > get the label “extra ordinary” they must be, after all, just > experiences and experiences of other experiences, ad infinitum. To > assert more is to engage in epistemological smugness. > > > > By the way, the FRIAM server continues to mix things up, putting > little obstacles to our communication. So, for instance, I don’t have > Dave’s original response to what Steve responded to. > > > > Nick > > > > Nicholas S. Thompson > > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology > > Clark University > > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > > > > *From:*Friam [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Steven > A Smith > *Sent:* Monday, November 18, 2019 9:28 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] flattening -isms > > > > > > On 11/18/19 5:13 AM, Prof David West wrote: > > Nick said: > > > > /"What struck me about them was how many of them held the view > that reality was beyond experience: i.e., that our experience > provided clues to reality, but the thing itself was beyond > experience. I never could convince them that that their belief in > a reality beyond experience had to be based on … experience. So, > why not be monists, and talk about organizations of experience. > Ultimately, it was their dualism that confirmed me in my monism."/ > > > > How about an assertion that there is *_A_* Reality beyond > *_"ordinary"_* experience; with "ordinary experience" being the > half-dozen or so overt sensory inputs (sight, sound, balance, > touch, taste, smell) we typically associate with experience. > > I generally accept Nunez/Lakoff's position/arguement in Where > Mathematics Comes From: > > from the Wikipedia article on this book: > > /Lakoff and Núñez hold that mathematics results from the human > cognitive apparatus and must therefore be understood in cognitive > terms. WMCF advocates (and includes some examples of) a cognitive > idea analysis of mathematics > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics> which analyzes > mathematical ideas in terms of the human experiences, metaphors, > generalizations, and other cognitive mechanisms giving rise to > them. A standard mathematical education does not develop such idea > analysis techniques because it does not pursue considerations of > A) what structures of the mind allow it to do mathematics or B) > the philosophy of mathematics > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mathematics>. / > > This point may well support Dave's hermeneutical position, though > Lakoff/Nunez do assume that there is such a thing as a human body and > that all humans roughly share the same physical/sensory/cognitive > apparatus. > ... > > The one cultural universal: every culture (obviously not every > individual in every culture) incorporates a belief in the > "supernatural." In all but, maybe, 2-3, cultures the > "supernatural" includes an alternative realm of existence (pre- > and/or after-life or "other planes." The, interpretations of this > universal are multiple - pretty much one per culture/subculture. > > And where does Joseph Campbell's notion of the Monomyth come in? Is > it merely "widely found", or perhaps just "cherry picked" by Western > Anthropology? > > I am reminded of the Rick Strassman's research into entheogens, with > DMT/Ayhuasca in particular. He seems to suggest/report that it is > universal that people tripping on DMT will experience culturally > specific interpretations (in the sense of your use of the term I > think) of "another plane" and "alien beings" which could range from > angels/demons harkening from heaven/hell to multidimensional alien > beings and parallel existences. > > - Steve > > > > > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
