[MD] What is radical empiricism?

[David M]

Hi Gav/Ian/possibly DMB

I think the label is as good as any. But I'd like to explore what we mean
by 'radical'. I am assuming that it is radical because it is something 
different
from a more SOM based sort of empiricism. SOM empiricisms
try to limit the significant or 'real' or 'primary' aspects of experience to 
either that which
can be quantified/measured or can be linked to the 'senses' as associated
with the body and its specific sense organs.

I assume the point of the MOQ and the key term quality is to recognise that
experience is something much broader than SOM empiricisms recognise.
Yet DMB is calling for a 'limit' on our assertions to that which we know 'in
experience'. But what is this 'other' that we can assert yet have never 
'experienced'?

What I wondered here is: is DMB being radical enough here? What is it that 
he wishes
to banish even though no one experiences it?

Is there not only experience? Is not experience outsideless?

And as per the MOQ do we not only experience that which has value, that 
interests us,
that threatens or injures us too? Whatever we experience has a value, all 
smells, colours,
sounds, etc we experience as good or bad in some sense. But we must not fall 
into the
mistake that we only experience patterns that can be located in the common 
and shared
space-time framework. A radical empiricism recognises all experiences as 
real. So
love and hate and memory and nostalgia and beauty are real patterns of 
experience.
If they were not such patterns we would not have words for them. Some 
patterns and
the qualities that form them will be recognised by most, such as the sea 
being blue,
others less so, such as the sea as being sublime.

The claim to base everything on experience is useful but needs to be handled 
with care.
We can all understand why we can agree that a daisy is yellow. But do we 
agree on
the value of money? It is just paper with pictures and images on it in one 
sense, yet
we all just experience it as 'money' most of the time. Or should we say it 
is a flexible
material that tears and burns? Or is it something we love? It can have many 
qualities.
They are all real. How/why is this?

It is as if sometimes one set of qualities are experienced, then, at another 
time, another set
is experienced. Why is this? I'd suggest that experience=change. And that 
change can
be for the better or worse. Therefore all experience has a value for us as a 
set of
patterns in constant change. So one day we are a set of patterns that is 
changes by another
set of patterns and we have one set of experiences. Then another day we may 
encounter
an almost identical set of patterns in a different way because we have 
changed since the
last encounter and exchange. Such is the evolution of the individual (as a 
set of constantly
changing patterns).

The levels should perhaps be classified in terms of the different qualities 
that are able to
emerge as more complex sets of patterns emerge. Perhaps there is an 
evolution from
experiences of light (particle exchange), experiences of relief (as electron 
shells are
filled), qualities of satisfaction (as molecule chains are formed), 
qualities of desire
as the plants seeks out the light, qualities of joy as the dog hunts, 
qualities of awareness
as humans beings reflect.

Thanks for your interest human beings.
David M


> Davids, Gav,
>
> I'm no fan of labels like "radical empiricism", but I have no problem
> with that working understanding (DMB, clarified by Gav) of the term in
> relation to MoQ.
>
> As we find frequently, it doesn't fix any problem in itself, and we
> get into debates about "so what counts as immedate experience", and we
> wheel out Barfield etc.
>
> I'm cool with radical empiricism.
> Ian
>
> On 10/31/06, gav <gav_gc at yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>> if i may,
>> radical empiricism is taking immediate experience as
>> the only certainty. everything else is 'bracketed';
>> putative, not absolute.
>>
>> in the MOQ the same position is seen in the DQ/sq
>> relation. DQ is absolute (truly radically empirical);
>> sq is abstracted from DQ; sq is what we call 'the
>> world' - every*thing*.
>>
>> memory, science etc are all sq patterns or
>> meta-patterns. their pragmatic truth value is
>> dependent upon their continued accord with (immediate)
>> experience.
>>
>> everything is abstracted from immediate experience
>> (DQ), including us.


DMB: radical empiricism; we are obliged
to limit our assertions to what is known in experience.


DM: Help please? What does this mean? How do we experience
the levels that Pirsig asserts for example? How much of science do we
need to suspend as talking about unexperienced entities? What
does 'known'mean here? Is this not positivism? Can you notice
patterns without memory? What is the status of memory in
radical empiricism? Is this what Pirsig says?