File spoon-archives/bhaskar.archive/bhaskar_1996/96-07-26.024, message 83


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.




   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005