Alright Craig, he's a big guy but maybe we can take him if we tag-team him. You take him high, I will, as ever, take him low.
On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 10:39 AM, Ham Priday <[email protected]> wrote: > > I disagree. You have shown that empirical knowledge is grounded in > experience, not that things and events have an independent reality. John: Well I wonder Ham, did Craig show empirical knowledge grounded in experience, or experience grounded in empirical knowledge? Or perhaps the two are conflationary as well as complementary and therefore you can throw 'em around all ambiguously to make whatever point you need to make. I like getting down to the basics, so I'll just reduce as much as I can and then see if your formulation still makes sense. First, the easiest reduction is from things to events; things ARE events, so we can x that outta there and we have: you (Craig) shows emp. know. grounded in exp.; not events have independent reality. Events do not have '*independent* reality'. Nothing does. Everything is relative, sez Albert. Some unknowable relationships exist even between events I "know", therefore to state any *independent* reality within the cohesive cosmos is ludicrous, isn't it? But a real relative independence from ourselves, as opposed to an absolute one, is undoubtedly logically demonstrable. The key, is intersubjective reality formation, which is what I'm afraid you miss, Ham, with your isolated, individualistic subjectivism. What about, then, this reality we all perceive and share perception of, as separate from ourselves? Does it not exist? Of course it exists. This is the problem so many here have and have had in declaiming the subject/object relationship as non-fundamental and they end up proclaiming it as non-existent! Why? It's a cute baby! It coos and gurgles. Sure, it's annoying sometimes with poop and crying, but overall, it's a great baby. And it's real. The perception of a reality, the subjective objective split is demonstrably real and exists and we're using it right this minute. It's cool! A great tool. Let's not let it get all rusty from misuse and leaving it out in the rain and treating it disparagingly. SOM - is Good, not God. What we agree on is that something is perceived in relationship, and even if the "object" of the relationship is ultimately unknowable, the relationship itself is as immediate an empirical fact as we can have. Intellect supplies patterns to interpret these patterns into qualitative leaps of intuition which surpass mere deductive logic and enable a knowing that is radically empirical, and logically rational and concludes that the significance of percieved patterns impresses an intersubjective "objectivity" which confirms for us a seemingly independent reality outside of ourselves and our narrow worldview. So... Which one is experience'd" and which one is experience'r" again? I get lost. But I know there is a relationship between the two. That's logically undeniably fundamental. Take him Craig. (maybe pin him on his use of ""cause"" - hah, an easy trip-up) > The use of cameras and other recording devices only supplements the > experiential construct of the observer by a time extension. There is a > cogent design to what we call "objective experience" which is a valuistic > representation of the essential source. As I said before, "most events are > relational in space, periodic or cyclic in time, and familiar (i.e., > predictable) occurrences." From this perceived congruity we deduce that new > events (transformations) are the effect of prior causes. Repetitive > experiences tend to reinforce the precept of causality. > > The observation of any phenomenon or event is an experience. Thus, the > change observed (experienced) in Tool #1 is the accumulation of rust on its > surface. From this we conclude that the rust appearing (experienced) on the > iron is the effect of oxidation by the rainwater over time. Photographed > Tool #2 is also observed to rust, based on indirect experience provided by > the camera. Since unobserved Tool #3 is later observed to be rusty, we > deduce that its apparent (experienced) change is also caused by oxidation > over a comparable time interval. > > In all three instances our knowledge of the tool's transformation is > experiential, while the "cause" of the tranformation is an intellectual > precept (knowledge) derived from the sequential mode of our experience. > > Does this analysis make my epistemology any clearer? > > Regards, > Ham Oh was that what that was? An epistemological explication? I thought it was some tool maintenance tips. John - all tired out and retiring to his corner. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
