[MD] Forget about Empiricism, no thanks.

[skutvik at online.no]

David M

On 20 Oct. you wrote:

> > [Bo]
> > There is no way of ESCAPING an explanation of experience and for the
> > Western world this explanation has been the subject/object one.
 
> DM: Is it an explanation? I'd suggest it is a way of dividing and
> describing experience, where's the explanation?

We must have a different notion of what "explanation" means, perhaps 
"interpretation" is more close to what I mean. I possibly mentioned my 
favourite "cave humankind" who represents the social level at its hey-
day before intellect arrived. Their explanation/interpretation of 
experience was that of gods and goddesses, that - for example - the 
lights in the sky were such entities, that ALL phenomena were effects 
of their will. (Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung). Then came intellect 
that looked objectively on experience and explained it accordingly - the 
lights were inert heavenly bodies - planets and stars. This explanation 
did not spring full-fledged from the Greeks but evolved from their basic 
new attitude, that of seeking for OBJECTIVE truth and regarding the 
old (in moqtalk) social explanation as SUBJECTIVE nonsense.

 
> DM: Well yes,one of the problems with SOM is its focus on order and
> its blindness towards dynamic emergence, etc.

This is your comment to Joe's musings but I can't help myself. 
"Blindness towards dynamic experience". The static levels are static 
for the reason of "being blind to the dynamic" and intellect (SOM) is as 
blind as the rest. It's only from MOQ's meta-level that existence's 
dynamic/static aspect became manifest.  


Bo