[MD] Experience, essentialism, physicalism

[David M]

Well in sociological theory I think the critical realists are
doing some interesting stuff, take a look at these if you are interested:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/reader/0521535972/ref=sib_dp_pt/026-8356182-4810004#reader-link
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/reader/0521564417/ref=sib_dp_pt/026-8356182-4810004#reader-link
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/reader/0521795648/ref=sib_dp_pt/026-8356182-4810004#reader-link
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/reader/0415336171/ref=sib_dp_pt/026-8356182-4810004#reader-link
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/reader/0415196329/ref=sib_dp_pt/026-8356182-4810004#reader-link

DM

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Heather Perella" <spiritualadirondack at yahoo.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Monday, March 13, 2006 9:07 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Experience, essentialism, physicalism


> 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
> 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/
>