Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 21:24:38 +0200 From: bda94-AT-stud.hoe.se (bwanika) Subject: Re: insignificant experiences and plausibility of positivism Hans E. wrote:- >Bhaskar says that the conditions are `largely co-extensive with >the conditions under which experience is significant in science'. >However, even in the light of the above, I am still unsure as >to what Bhaskar means by `experience'. Does he mean immediate >experience, i.e. experience without sense-extending equipment? I think, Bhaskar means * real essences * when he writes about experiences. a. There experiences which are brought about through social interactions which in this sense, are symbolic (why do you use drugs because it a trendy, fast food and so on, ) Such experiences , I don't know what Bhaskar calls them but I do think these are grounded on discrete linguistic forms of typically a conspicuous consuming society. This can be seen, particularly with the emergency which saw the rise and fall of commercial advertising in managerial economics. Fashion cars, trendy foods, fashion but they are both innovative though not grounded for they are only serving reductionistic experiences. [ fine tuning ] b. There experiences which are dialectical , that is to say they are historically possible as the events unfolds in human processes. In this sense these experiences are ontological in nature, that is, they reveal the inner forces of an event which is about to or ( is) take(s) place . I think this is what Bhaskar implies with experience . Example with experiences of this nature, can be taken from genetics and the cause of homosexuality. But this view can be nullified for instance when we take matriarchal societies where men behave like women. Therefore we have two different experiences which models our explanatory perceptions towards a unified understanding . That is the genetics and social relationships. Or a fly can fly so men can fly. Experiences (real essence ) leads thinking about things or the order of things in different directions ( the world is not one perfect line) That too depends on contingent structures, i.e. historical , geographical, and much more in the western world, by economic structures of a capitalism system. Therefore , there is a difference between epistemic experience derived from reductionistic linguistic structures and ontological experience (real essences ) which derive there nature from problematic fields. These experiences are forces paged on negation and unfolding problematicities -----> event -------> causality and knowledge resolution Bwanika =D6rebro.
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005