[FRIAM] flattening -isms

Mon Nov 18 15:48:25 EST 2019

Sorry, Steve, to have taken you name in vain.  

I thought the views expressed were a bit more Steve-ish than Dave-ish … (};-)]  So, what is the difference between Steve-ish and Dave-ish on this topic?  

Nick 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

 <http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/> 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 10:55 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] flattening -isms

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/> 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 <mailto: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/20191118/4af20b18/attachment.html>