Russ, you asked about both "subjective" and "experience". I did my best to answer about both.
What I mean by "experience" is probably best answered by my quote from Dewey. I fancy myself a very good writer... but not better than Dewey. I mean an actual, in the moment, experiencing of a thing. In the most general and non-technical sense of the word "thing." Beyond that, I think that when we analyze the "experience" relationship, we find that it consists of what could properly be labeled "behavior" (or, perhaps, a physiological orientation towards certain behavior, although I'm not *as *comfortable with that). That is, to "experience something" is to be reacting to it, with a few caveats thrown in to make it clear than not all reactions count. ----------- Eric P. Charles, Ph.D. Lab Manager Center for Teaching, Research, and Learning American University, Hurst Hall Room 203A 4400 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20016 phone: (202) 885-3867 fax: (202) 885-1190 email: echar...@american.edu On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 5:01 PM, Russ Abbott <russ.abb...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm afraid I'm not satisfied. > > So often when I ask what appears to be a relatively straightforward > question I get drowned in words that dance around the subject in ways I > don't understand. For example, Eric wrote, "What I don't accept, however, > is the that the notion that all experience is some how "inescapably > subjective" in the sense that ... " > > I had asked what *you *mean by the term *experience*. None of this tells > me. Mainly you attribute a position to me (or imply that I hold it) and > then attack it. This seems to happen all the time. I ask you a question and > your response is to say that my position (or some position that you > apparently associate with me) is wrong. > > How about just answering the question. What do *you *mean when *you *use > the word "experience?" > > > > On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 8:24 AM Eric Charles < > eric.phillip.char...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> The other thread was getting bogged down in other things, so I'm starting >> a new one to try to answer Russ's question about some of the terms Nick and >> I are using, in particular "experience" and whether I deny "subjectivity". >> >> The latter is easier. Re subjectivity: >> I do not deny that the knowledge relationship has two elements (knower >> and known) and the relationship between them that we refer to as "knowing." >> But that leaves open the question of what type of relationship that is. If >> you are merely pointing out that there are "subjects" who look out into the >> world, then I have no objection. If you are pointing out that those >> subjects see the world from a particular point of view (in a literal and >> metaphorical sense), I still have no objection. What I don't accept, >> however, is the that the notion that all experience is some how >> "inescapably subjective" in the sense that A) we can never really know what >> someone else is experiencing, or B) that we are never really experiencing >> anything but "our own subjective worlds." The latter, if taken seriously, >> has lead emminent philosophers to feel like intellectual giants if they >> channel their inner The Big Lebowski and reply to any claim about the world >> with, "Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, uh, your opinion, man." >> >> I'm not sure what would satisfy you re experience. I will try quoting >> some Dewey to see if that helps: >> >> Immediate empiricism postulates that things- anything, everything, in the >> ordinary or nontechnical use of the term " thing "- are what they are >> experienced as. Hence, if one wishes to describe anything truly, his task >> is to tell what it is experienced as being. If it is a horse that is to be >> described, or the *equus *that is to be defined, then must the >> horse-trader, or the jockey, or the timid family man who wants a " safe >> driver," or the zoologist or the paleontologist tell us what the horse is >> which is experienced. If these accounts turn out different in some >> respects, as well as congruous in others, this is no reason for assuming >> the content of one to be exclusively " real," and that of others to be " >> phenomenal"; for each account of what is experienced will manifest that it >> is the account o f the horse-dealer, or of the zoologist, and hence will >> give the conditions requisite for understanding the differences as well as >> the agreements of the various accounts. And the principle varies not a whit >> if we bring in the psychologist's horse, the logician's horse, or the >> metaphysician's horse. >> >> In each case, the nub of the question is, what sort of experience is >> denoted or indicated: a concrete and determinate experience, varying, when >> it varies, in specific real elements, and agreeing, when it agrees, in >> specific real elements, so that we have a contrast, not between a Reality, >> and various approximations to, or phenomenal representations of Reality, >> but between different reals of experience. And the reader is begged to bear >> in mind that from this standpoint, when " an experience " or " some sort of >> experience " is referred to, " some thing " or " some sort of thing " is >> always meant.... >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ----------- >> Eric P. Charles, Ph.D. >> Lab Manager >> Center for Teaching, Research, and Learning >> American University, Hurst Hall Room 203A >> 4400 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. >> Washington, DC 20016 >> phone: (202) 885-3867 fax: (202) 885-1190 >> email: echar...@american.edu >> >> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 11:20 PM, Russ Abbott <russ.abb...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> This has moved so far beyond what I'm capable of thinking about that I'm >>> lost. (Although I thank Nick for crediting me with pointing out the >>> activity of the visual cortex. Good point -- even though it didn't occur to >>> me to refer to it.) >>> >>> I'm still way back at a much simpler question. What do Nick and Eric >>> mean when they use the word *experience *as a noun and as a verb as >>> Eric did in the following? >>> >>> *whatever you are experiencing, you are experiencing it as somehow akin >>> to a visual experience* >>> >>> Eric actually wrote the preceding not too long ago. >>> >>> Or to take a more recent example, Nick wrote, "*I don’t think that is >>> what John had in mind."* What does Nick mean by "had in mind"? >>> >>> The point is that both Eric and Nick seem to use subjective experience >>> language fairly freely but at the same time claim that it doesn't mean >>> anything. So my question continues to be what do they mean when they use it. >>> >>> ============================================================ >> 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 > > > ============================================================ > 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 >
============================================================ 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
