[FRIAM] flattening -isms

[Steven A Smith]

Nick -
>
> No, Steve.  Absolutely not.  No Way. 
>
Whether FriAM's server or my mailer's mode of larding vs your mode of
reading it, you misattribute these words to me when they were in fact
Dave's...  what follows *after* that, namely the Lakoff/Nunez reference
and discussion of that perspective is mine.

Carry on!

 - Steve

>  
>
> How about an assertion that there is *_A_* Reality beyond
> *_"ordinary"_* experience; with "ordinary experience" being the
> half-dozen or so overt sensory inputs (sight, sound, balance, touch,
> taste, smell)  we typically associate with experience
>
>  
>
> No.  There lies spiritualist blather.  Having pried me away from my
> monism, you are driving me back toward it.  */Ex hypothesi/*, what
> ever your R. B. O. E. might be asserted to be, it is, in fact, a
> construction of experience.  Because, we agreed, there is no other
> source, right?  Now, if you want to introduce God’s Love or Extra
> Sensory Intuition, or the Wisdom of the Spheres, we can talk.  But e  
> ven if you stipulate additonal senses, beyond the six, they are still
> contributing to experience.  Unless you are willing to stipulate some
> other source of knowledge beyond experience, we have to admit that
> while some experiences, because of their capacity to integrate others,
> get the label “extra ordinary” they must be, after all, just
> experiences and experiences of other experiences, ad infinitum.  To
> assert more is to engage in epistemological smugness. 
>
>  
>
> By the way, the FRIAM server continues to mix things up, putting
> little obstacles to our communication.  So, for instance, I don’t have
> Dave’s original response to what Steve responded to.
>
>  
>
> Nick
>
>  
>
>   Nicholas S. Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>
> Clark University
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>  
>
> *From:*Friam [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Steven
> A Smith
> *Sent:* Monday, November 18, 2019 9:28 AM
> *To:* friam at redfish.com
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] flattening -isms
>
>  
>
>  
>
> On 11/18/19 5:13 AM, Prof David West wrote:
>
>     Nick said:
>
>      
>
>     /"What struck me about them was how many of them held the view
>     that reality was beyond experience: i.e., that our experience
>     provided clues to reality, but the thing itself was beyond
>     experience.  I never could convince them that that their belief in
>     a reality beyond experience had to be based on … experience.  So,
>     why not be monists, and talk about organizations of experience. 
>     Ultimately, it was their dualism that confirmed me in my monism."/
>
>      
>
>     How about an assertion that there is *_A_* Reality beyond
>     *_"ordinary"_* experience; with "ordinary experience" being the
>     half-dozen or so overt sensory inputs (sight, sound, balance,
>     touch, taste, smell)  we typically associate with experience.
>
> I generally accept Nunez/Lakoff's position/arguement in Where
> Mathematics Comes From:
>
> from the Wikipedia article on this book:
>
>     /Lakoff and Núñez hold that mathematics results from the human
>     cognitive apparatus and must therefore be understood in cognitive
>     terms. WMCF advocates (and includes some examples of) a cognitive
>     idea analysis of mathematics
>     <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics> which analyzes
>     mathematical ideas in terms of the human experiences, metaphors,
>     generalizations, and other cognitive mechanisms giving rise to
>     them. A standard mathematical education does not develop such idea
>     analysis techniques because it does not pursue considerations of
>     A) what structures of the mind allow it to do mathematics or B)
>     the philosophy of mathematics
>     <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mathematics>. /
>
> This point may well support Dave's hermeneutical position, though
> Lakoff/Nunez do assume that there is such a thing as a human body and
> that all humans roughly share the same physical/sensory/cognitive
> apparatus.
> ...
>
>     The one cultural universal: every culture (obviously not every
>     individual in every culture) incorporates a belief in the
>     "supernatural." In all but, maybe, 2-3, cultures the
>     "supernatural" includes an alternative realm of existence (pre-
>     and/or after-life or "other planes."  The, interpretations of this
>     universal are multiple - pretty much one per culture/subculture.
>
> And where does Joseph Campbell's notion of the Monomyth come in?   Is
> it merely "widely found", or perhaps just "cherry picked" by Western
> Anthropology?
>
> I am reminded of the Rick Strassman's research into entheogens, with
> DMT/Ayhuasca in particular.   He seems to suggest/report that it is
> universal that people tripping on DMT will experience culturally
> specific interpretations (in the sense of your use of the term I
> think) of "another plane" and "alien beings"  which could range from
> angels/demons harkening from heaven/hell to multidimensional alien
> beings and parallel existences.
>
> - Steve
>
>  
>
>  
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20191118/f7d22bc4/attachment.html>