[MD] What is radical empiricism?

[gav]

'radical' means to go to the root of. radical
empiricism is to go to the root or source of
empiricism.

(in biology the root of a germinating seed is called
the radicle).

there is only one root, one source: the
undifferentiated aesthetic continuum. remember it is
*undifferentiatied*. once we talk about particular
experiences we are differentiating.


 
--- David M <davidint at blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

> 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?
> 
> 
> 
> 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/
> 


Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com