'Data' have long been seen as 'capta' GW - Kant somewhere, but you can take bets the Greeks and Indians were on to this. It's difficult to know how the myth of the given survives so well. It's not this that's really interesting, but how shifts in how we construe can make a difference in what we can do and be. What we often call 'data' is often agreed by all parties in communication about it and it does seem different from theorising even if we need theory to spin it in. Quite how raw data ever is remains questionable. What tends to strike me is that there is always plenty I am agreeing on with others, yet often I sense the others have no intent at all to understand my perspectives. I fancy much epistemological distraction about how hard it all is is basic bull to excuse people ignoring the actual evidence in situations because it suits them. Rand isn't much good, but I feel something is right about trying to get us to work with the evidence. This is more or less where epistemology gets us to today, but it then lapses into complexities not transmitted into lay texts - this also being a problem for therapy. I think we should return to exposing much current positioning as lying through ordering the evidence.
On 21 Sep, 21:52, [email protected] wrote: > I agree Frantherman - There are purportedly 465 therapy models which must be > good for some people. It is also true that not all models are equally > effective. The model I think that is most comprehensive allowing for maximum > flexibility, uniqueness of personality structure, depth and complexity of > differences in personality and the likes is psychodynamic depth psychology. > This allows and encourages what I refer to as > > an individuals' Rashomoning their unique experience which enables them to > find a path through their confusion in ordering the raw data of their > > experience. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: frantheman <[email protected]> > To: "Minds Eye" <[email protected]> > Sent: Mon, Sep 21, 2009 4:27 pm > Subject: [Mind's Eye] Re: Objectivism vs Altruism > > he marvellous thing about that which we call "reality" - the world as > e experience it - is its amazing depth and complexity. For this > eason we can use many approaches/models. They don't always dovetail > nto each other, but neither are they necessarily in contradiction. > here's a lot in the fable of the blind men and the elephant - the > ifference being that each of the blind men is right and the elephant > an never be explored in its entirety. > As a therapist, gw, I imagine you encounter this all the time. > veryone finds their own answers/openings/ways forward for themselves. > sychologically, reducing our existence to a singular linear vector - > hile in certain situations, perhaps, temprarily behaviourally helpful > s a possible way out of confusion - is=2 > 0not really helpful. It is > eeing, relishing the complex richness of experience which opens all > orts of possibilities for growth. Rand's approach strikes me here as > omewhat shallow. > Francis > On 21 Sep., 21:21, [email protected] wrote: > Try this out - A quote from the philosopher Abraham Kaplan in his book: The > ew World of Philosophy > > "… The facts of experience are not “data” – what is given – but what is > aken: a “fact” is etymologically something made. The > > experience from which knowledge issues is more like reading the expression in > face than it is like solving a cryptogram or a crossword > > puzzle. What is at work is not a process of sheer ratiocination, but > processes > f identification, introjection, and other such mechanisms, > > largely unconscious and preconscious. (Kaplan, 1961, p.152) > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: frantheman <[email protected]> > To: "Minds Eye" <[email protected]> > Sent: Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:51 am > Subject: [Mind's Eye] Re: Objectivism vs Altruism > > inally someone has brought this discussion into the area in which it > elongs. The reference to Husserl was apposite. Thank you, Justin > I've been following this discussion without taking part - apart from a > ew one-line Socratic questions to Skip - because I see the question > f "facts", or, relatedly, "things-in-themselves" (to use Husserlian > erminology), as very deep and quite complex - even if, as many claim, > =C > 2sublime simplicity may come into view when one has reached a certain > tage in the investigation. Furthermore, I am very much aware that my > wn position in this investigation is very much conditional. > Justin goes much farther than I can, indeed, my view is=2 > 0that he goes > arther than philosophy can. (Not for the first time,) this post > eminds me very much of the later Heidegger, where his search for the > eing of being (Sein des Seins) leads him to language and expression > hich I understand more in poetic and mystical terms. This seems to me > o be inevitable, given our basic position as perceiving subjects. > oing beyond this is like trying to get out of our own skins. I doubt > f this is possible in terms of strict philosophical analysis, because > despite Husserl's own attempts to "bracket everything out" - I see > o way to bracket out the analysing subject. Concepts and language > onstrain our analysis to the phenomenological, making our > onclusions, ultimately, conditional. For my own position > conditionally!), I see certain elements of confirmation in many > nterpretations of quantum theory as well as in aspects of Popper's > hinking. > I emphasise once more - conditional. I see philosophy - the search for > isdom - very much as a journey; a journey into the depth of things > phenomenologically perceived :-)). To use Heideggerian language, I > ind myself in the clearing, waiting for Being to reveal itself. It > oesn't. At the moment. This may change. But such a revelation (o > rn > ight call it "apprehending") is something which, I believe, goes > eyond philosophical analysis. And so, conditionally, I remain in the > xpectant agnostic position (philosophically) of atheistic > xistentialism. > Francis > On 21 Sep., 16:22, Justintruth <[email protected]> wrote: > Husserl made a distinction between fact and essence. > > Essence is roughly the content of the fact or its meaning which is > subject to interpretation but not wholly determinable by > interpretation. > > In addition to the essence there is the statement of "facticity" which > basically means that the fact "is". > > You can look at the back side of the moon as an example. Let's say > there is a 500 ft crater on the back side of the moon. Now facts are > always in terms of essence so the terms here are "a 500ft crater" > which is meaningless or not, independent of its facticity. If you > refer to some experience, not necessarily one that you have had, that > gives meaning to the phrase "a 500 ft crater" then the term ends up > with meaning. However, if you in fact get the meaning of "a 500 ft > crater on the back side of the moon" then it still, "in fact", might > not be there. > > You can also look at something that unlike the back side of the moon > is right in front of you and, for a time, choose to not consider what > it is. You still realize that there is an experience you are having > and it has a corre > late that is there, or, perhaps better, happening. > You can choose to examine it. It is from those correlates that the > meaning of that which we don't see it constituted and without those > references the meaning itself falls away into nothingness. > > The real problem is when you consider essentially the fact of > facticity itself or the essence of facticity if you will its > "manifestation" in meaning.=2 > 0It is difficult to know how do give it > meaning.... difficult but when known...or seen... when one sees that > one is confronted by the "facting" of the world and that this is not > "semblence" or 'mere appearance" then the absolute nature of Being is > encountered. It is neither external nor internal. Then all kinds of > strange things come out of your mouth when trying to say what you mean > and people think you haven't a clue and that you are making elementary > mistakes in epistemology. The reality is that you have experienced the > meaning. > > People also have trouble with the fact of essence and often even with > the fact of history. In some very narrow understanding of being the > past "is no longer" which gets interpreted as the past "isn't". The > same with all meaning including Being. In that way of thinking to say > something is your "interpretation" means that it is inherently > subjective and, again, in that way of thinking therefore not objective > or real. It is "only" > meaning. Not the "real thing". That is just a > failure to realize Being I think. The possibility of concealment will > of course always be there but that does not negate the fact of the > reality of the semblance as semblance. This is where Truth intersects > with Being, and it is in unconcealment or revealing that the truth is. > Some think there is some "other" concealed thing that is the reality > and we experience only its shadow but I think that misses the meaning > of unconcealment an > d revelation inherent in the meaning of Being. > > I could be wrong, but then, I could be right. > > On Sep 21, 6:39 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Umm okay well let me try it this way instead then. > > > I agree that that 'facts are facts and our subjective understanding of > > them does not change them' > > > What now? You and I have agreed on that point, you have won me over, > > I'll admit that my talk of subjective facts was wrong, now where do we > > go now that we both understand this? > > > On 21 Sep, 14:21, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Sep 21, 7:19 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > Okay Slip, so we accept that, now what is the porpose of your stance? > > > > > Is it really merely to say 'facts are facts and our subjective > > > > understanding of them doe > s not change them'? > > > > (seems simple enough) > > > > > It seem to me that in expressing such a thing you side with Rand, I > > > > for one would love to move this thread forward and get to the meat of > > > > the matter. You have said two things here: > > > > > The first I can only say is blatant lie by you and that is your > > > > comment about getting of the ride, umm you still take your seat I > > > > notice. > > > > (I said and repeat, IF the thread reaches an impasse then in a sense > > > it is a carousel at which point I get off the ride. > Obviously some > > > have returned to break the stagnation, I don't see why this is not > > > clear, so you are rash in your attack and unjust in your assessment.) > > > > > The second is that you have just said you have no interset in > > > > discusing Rands Objectivism vs Altruism, > > > > (Is that what I said? I thought it was something like "examining > > > facts". You might try reading my post, not reading into it.) > > > (If you want to bring up something that you want to discuss concerning > > > Rand then bring it up and we can discuss it.) > > > > Blah blah...........Let me say this Lee, IF you and anyone else wanted > > > to > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
