DMB Try again
dmb said to David M: ...Its no different (mystical knowledge) from any other area of inquiry. DM > Nonsense, take science as a form of enquiry, this relies on the fact that experiments can be repeated by others, and seen by others. Mystics have no such luxury and so therefore it is more tricky to form agreement about the knowledge mystics claim to possess. I would not say that this rules mystical knowledge out of court, but it presents difficulties, which I think it is nonsense to deny, as you seem to above with 'no different'. There are differences, as well as similarities, and to deny this is simplification that stops the real complex situation being properly assessed. Of course, you like to shut down any conversation about anything difficult by saying: "I don't understand, it's your fault you speaking fork tongue, it's a nonsequitor, this is plain contradiction, etc". > And I'd seriously like to know what you mean by "the sphere of the > possible". Where did you get this notion? This is another chance to have a > real conversation, if you're interested. DM: An example: To write Hamlet, Shakespeare had to explore the sphere of all possible Hamlets. Being who he was, Shakeaspeare had the capacity (due to his SQlevels and DQ) to access certain possibilities for this play unavailable to other writers. From the many possibilities he was able to consider he choose the best 2/3 possibilities to make actual and records on paper. These are the Hamlets we now have along with his other plays. When alive, like most other writers, there were many possible other great plays he never got round to making actual. The 'sphere of the possible' is my preferred way to refer to the reality of the possibilities that any situation mames available. This is what DQ is I'd suggest. The best philosophical use of this concept to hep explain reality-experience is in Whitehead trying reading the Sneddon paper if you're not up to Process and Reality. EG: "The kind of creativity at issue for Whitehead is not ex nihilo, rather, it is a process of actualization of possibilities. Whitehead calls these possibilities 'eternal objects'. The eternal objects are deficient in actuality--they are real, but not actual or concrete in the sense that occasions are. They are the forms potentiality takes for the occasions When an occasion prehends past events, it feels a welter of diverse eternal objects. These data are thrown forward for future creativity. This has not just pushed the ex nihilo factor one step back--the eternal objects are eternal potentiality. Apart from actual occasions, these eternal objects reside, available for creativity, in what Whitehead names the 'primordial nature of god'. Each occasion is in contact with this primordial nature. This 'mingling' of potentiality with actuality provides both the full extent of potentiality for each occasion, as well as the drive or urge towards actualization." Available at: http://robertpirsig.org/SneddonThesis.htm > P.S. I found Husserl's phenomenology to be one of the least interesting > things I ever encountered in the philosophical world. DM: Well, I'm impressed, exactly how much of Husserl's work and his commentators (the dozens that make up the tradition of Continental Philosophy) did you get through? Nothing there to interest you? You are so cool and above the rest of us! 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/
