| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Holes in Whispering epistomology |
| Posted by: | John Grinder |
| Date/Time: | 22/04/2005 19:18:23 |
|
Juan I will wait until you have made your presentation before offering much in the way of comment. I will point out that there is a lot of looseness in your presentation: 1. if you are serious about formalism, you will have to offer (at least) an operational definition of the fundamental terms of your system (O is OK; N is wholly unclear and E is undefined - are you using the term in the same manner as Whispering where it is relatively well-defined or have you something else in mind? 2. you write, "Experience the TOTALITY of what’s going on in the present. (You can even take a second to relate all this to your experience right Now)." Putting a term that is undefined in a definition of another term is a tautology - even if you CAPITALIZE it. 3. you write, "So here we are, human living beings trying to understand how we do what we do, and how do we know what we think we know." If I were to characterize what I do, it certainly would not be "trying to understand" anything - learning to do new and interesting things does not imply "understanding" another loose term. Please note that in the epistemology of Whispering, experience (FA) is by definition an already transformed version of whatever is out there. Juan - I offer these comments to suggest that you might make a more forceful case if you took more care with the presentation. I suggest that rather than responding to what I presented here, you simply take the comments into account in your further elabloration of an alternative epistemology,. John |