20 Jun '07 16:53>
Originally posted by vistesd(2) Re your red shirts and eggs—are you a direct realist?
(1) I agree that all experience is participatory. All our efforts to conceptualize, represent, describe are in some way self-referential, as well as perspectival.
(2) Re your red shirts and eggs—are you a direct realist?
(3) Everything that can be said about the motivations of being a heretic can be said about the motivations of those who think of t ...[text shortened]... n.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=70233 . I think what I said there is on point here as well.
No, I am not a naive realist. I am, however, what is called a 'critical realist'.
(3) Everything that can be said about the motivations of being a heretic can be said about the motivations of those who think of themselves as orthodox.
Not really.
That, however, was a tongue-in-cheek comment. Whether or not I enjoy being a heretic in certain contexts has naught to do with the honesty of that hereseism.
Okay. Just pointing out something worth thinking about.
I am not (yet anyway) challenging one’s ability to make propositional statements, that may be epistemically justifiable, about the phenomenal nature of the experience itself—I am challenging the ability to such statements about the preconceptual “noumenal” ground.
And I challenge that such preconceptual "noumenal" grounds exist in the first place. By definition, we cannot know anything about them (or they wouldn't be noumenal) -- why suppose they exist at all?
(5) The experience of the divine, or the divine ground, or the mystery ... — that “experience” is either (a) non-conceptual, at the pre-conceptual level of awareness; or (b) experience through a conceptual screen at the get-go.
I posit a third option -- a preconceptual experience that can be precised in concepts that (while not providing the experiental knowledge nor capturing entirely the essence of that experienced) are, nevertheless, "true" in the sense of corresponding to reality.