[MD] Reductionism

[MarshaV]

At 10:11 AM 6/2/2009, you wrote:
> > gav,
> >immediate experience doesn't need explaining, just describing.
>
>Marsha:
>That sounds correct.  If not explained or described, at least
>acknowledge rather than dismissed as irrelevant.  I know very little
>about Systems Theory.  My first exposure was in the movie,
>MINDWALK.  I brought in  the idea of 'immediate experience' because
>David Bohm talks about it.  He seems to be one of those scientists
>who has an interest in Systems Theory.
>
>[Krimel]
>This sounds correct to you? Even the drug addled rant he followed up with
>can't cover the smell of this bit of profound sounding bullshit. A
>description is an explanation. It is a conceptualization and communication
>of a perception. A description is an explanation of and from a particular
>point of view.
>
>Whatever, Aw Gi distinction the cult's founder is trying to make here; it
>just doesn't cut the mustard. To explain or describe is to communicate and
>to communicate is to conceptualize. The "gosh almighty" instant being
>described is in the past and the only way to resurrect it is to
>conceptualize it. While you are communicating your concepts, a boatload of
>Aw Gi moments is drifting way. You ought to hustle up and swim after them...
>
>Hmm, what's the aquatic equivalent of spinning your wheels?

Krimel,

I would say a description is 'It's green."  An explanation is "It's 
green because it's been dyed".  Neither statement says anything about 
the experience of seeing green.  Direct experience can only be 
described or explained as past event by conceptually constructing 
knowledge.  I'm not belittling second-hand knowledge, if it makes you 
happy, go for it...


Marsha














.
_____________

The self is a thought-flow of ever-changing, interrelated and 
interconnected, inorganic, biological, social and intellectual, 
static patterns of value responding to Dynamic Quality.

.
.