Krimel said to dmb:
What you keep parroting about sensory empiricism is simply not true.
dmb says:
Wilber, Pirsig and I disagree. So do lots of other people. And I can see
from this next comment that you don't understand what I'm saying about
sensory empiricism. You don't seem to understand what the problem is. So
much so that you keep offering it as the solution. You seem frustrated by
the fact that I don't want to accept the very thing I'm criticizing, which
is kinda tragic and funny at the same time....
Krimel said:
Just what is the difference? (between reading the EEG data and having a
mystical experience) If there is something special about the experience it
will be reflected in the EEG and the MRI and PET scan. How does
understanding the neurology of the experience detract from having the
experience? Wouldn't knowing what is going on during such an experience help
facilitate producing it in others? Wouldn't it help to validate the claims
of those who say they are having such experiences?
dmb says:
It does help to validity of these altered states by showing that there are
actual physical changes that mark the event. And if the data is fed back to
the person undergoing these changes it can be very useful. This data per se
does not detract from the experience and the data per se is not incorrect.
Again, the problem is the set of assumptions that says we are limited to
this kind of data. And notice how these various scans are all aimed at
physiological structures and measure them in quantitative terms. These are
the limits that prevent the scientific method from being used to examine
what the subject himself experiences as an interior state, which cannot be
located in space, does not have a surface or physical structure to measure
and cannot be detected with the senses or the scientific instruments that
extend the senses. This experience has to be observed with the eye of the
mind or the eye of contemplation, not the eye of flesh, if you will. That's
what I mean by expanding what counts as empirical evidence. Using things
like a PET scan to investigate modes of consciousness is pretty much the
essence of my complaint about the limits of sensory empiricism. That's what
I mean in saying that your comments demonstrate that you don't see what the
problem is...
Krimel said:
I know of nothing inherent in science that limits the nature of observation
or of what can be observed. But you must have a note from your mother to be
excused from tests. Science studies all manner of purely interior states.
People have personal experiences of the color green. This experience is
impossible to describe to anyone who has not had it. It transcends our
ability to communicate. And yet science has a lot to say about the
conditions that produce the experience; the skills needed to identify it;
the cultural factors that influence it and on and on and on. But you think
mystics should be exempt from the final.
dmb says:
Huh? A note from my mother for what test? I don't know what makes you think
that I think that mystics should be exempt anything. I'm not really
following you here. But notice that your example of an "interior state" is
just one more example of sensory data about a physical object, in this case
a green object. You deny that there is a problem even as you demonstrate the
problem. This amuses me. Are you doing this for entertainment purposes? If
so, I'm grateful. If not, I'm just lucky.
Krimel said:
Just being born? My God man accounts of mysticism are older the writing.
Read Campbell's account of the cave bear cults. If it is just now bearing
fruit, I'd say that's a little late.
dmb says:
Yes, I don't mean that mysticism or science is just being born. But a
science that can handle mysticism properly is not quite breathing yet. Feel
free to smack its little pink ass. Like I alreay said, the scientific method
of the West and meditation techniques of the East should get married.
Krimel said:
And you expect anyone to take what you say about Pirsig seriously? You are
supposed to be playing in the Big Show now, Dave. It doesn't matter if I
think you are making even a little bit of sense. You need to ask yourself
that question.
dmb says:
I don't expect to be taken seriously, although I can hope so. Playing in the
Big Show? If you mean my return to school, the professors apparently think I
make more than a little bit of sense. I've included Pirsig's work in the two
biggest papers on Pirsig and both of them earned an "A". William James's
radical empiricism was featured in both of them too, by the way. Pirsig
himself hasn't complained either. But maybe I should dismiss all that and
just take your word for it. Maybe those hacks over at Harvard, the ones that
have been passing out Ph.D.s based on Wilber's work, need a letter or phone
call from you to set them straight as well, eh? You're going be a very busy
guy so I'll stop there.
_________________________________________________________________
Play games, earn tickets, get cool prizes. Play nowit's FREE!
http://club.live.com/home.aspx?icid=CLUB_hotmailtextlink1
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/
