[MD] Experience, essentialism, physicalism

[Heather Perella]

Hello,

     David M. said:  "But what about the human
sciences are they physicalist?"

     I know sociology is looking for new theories. 
Functionalism, Structuralism, and others are not
working.  Anthropology uses cause and effect still,
but also Malinoski's Participation Observation.  The
former was argued in class and did not fit well with
the latter that we used more often.  The latter is
more natural.  You enter a culture participate and
observe what is happening.  Not only in your
experience, but in the relationships you develop and
the activities that you participate with and observe
while participating with collects data via experience.
 You try to find out what that particular culture is
like, using the experience you have in that culture as
a way.  It is not the same as living in the culture
from birth, but you gain a taste of that culture, and
even use some the behaviors that the culture has and
notice the acceptance or non-acceptance of your
interpretation and use of their cultural traits. 
There are other methods to gain information such as
interviewing and so forth, but all of these methods
have their limits, especially the time factor.  How
much time is spent in the culture so more and more
immersion takes place to gain intelligence of the
culture?

     Matt K. said:  "As I see it, Pirsig just wants to
clear up the philosophical space around the work of
scientists so we aren't saying silly things like,
"Values aren't real because they aren't bouncing
particles."

     Yes, exactly, because philosophers put the
thought behind what scientists are doing and noticing.
 Scientists observe data, and philosophers put such
observations into a more coherent theoretical
description.  Scientists that do these kinds of
descriptions are delving into their own philosopher
within themselves.

     Arlo and Matt (Arlo said):  "Thus, tools are not
simply objects by which we act on an external world,
but create "us" as much as they create "things"." 
"the mediated being"

     Why is so much focus being put on language in
this discussion?  

     David M. said:  "...and does not physics describe
the potential which is in no way physical whilst it
remains potential? So that physics is no longer
physicalist."

     What?

     Language, concepts of reality (noting Ham's
recent posting in this subject), is it physical or
just your imagination?  Go touch a rock.  Is it a
rock?  or a bug?  What should we call it?  How did it
get here?  What do we think how it got here?  What is
happening to it?  What do we think is happening to it?
 What is.... oopps a bird died... hey the turkey
vultures are back, time for spring, time for eggs,
time for new baby birds.  Can anybody understand what
I just wrote or are you talking in Japanese and we
need a translator?  
 
     We have words.  We use them as signs, ok... Are
the rocks our words or physical things?  Is this the
kind of questions we are asking or am I missing
something in this discussion?  I am not being
sarcastic.  I am honestly trying to understand what
people are saying, but without some kind of agreement
in the discussion it becomes very confusing because
there is no intellectual footing, nothing that is
stable for all of us to stand upon intellectually and
begin to ponder.  It seems much of what is said
changes and goes, people may stick with their
viewpoints, but sometimes what that view is seems to
be about something I am not familiar with.  Maybe this
posting is just something to read every once and
awhile and I will stay out of it.  Thus, if I am way
off-base, I'm sorry.

SA

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com