Re: dhw--Epistemological Framework (Order of Rank?) (Humans)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, March 02, 2011, 21:33 (5014 days ago) @ dhw

dhw,-Wow... I had written a complete response here... and clearly I must have not hit send. -I can say this, in rereading everything, I originally set out the thread with the point of getting everybody who posts here to delineate their own epistemology. I got excitedly sidetracked when you offered instead to build a framework together, but somewhere in that mutual stream of consciousness I managed to lose my original point when we got to the problem of rank. Some of the arguments I attempted were aphoristic arguments which confused. So scrap 'em. -We can agree on basic definitions, but the root cause of conflicts between David and I, or you and I, boils down to epistemological weighting. No discussion of epistemology can be without a subjective order of rank. -In the true nature of Nietzschean perspectivism... we each have a unique view. I think there can be something to be gained by evaluating our roots in how we know what we know (epistemology) to determine exactly how much subjectivity exists here. It's pretty clear for me, that in regards to most issues I lean materialistic, meaning, I err towards the objective at every conceivable point. To a greater or lesser extent, you appear to as well. But not completely... I'm still not sure where to place phenomenon such as NDE/OBE because they completely lack any objectivity at all. -David looks at arguments such as Adler's as valid, but Adler and David both jump into the world of pure conjecture, and are content to live there. How reasonable is this? Going back to Sagan's Dragon, why do we think it's perfectly okay to dismiss the dragon and not claims such as David's or Adler's? Or the Young Earth Creationists? Or how about the old Ontological argument for God? Why do we dismiss this?-The level and degree to which supernatural claims are subject to raw interpretation is entirely a sticky matter. -I am hoping we can move this discussion to one where everyone's basic assumptions and normative positions can be scrutinized by everyone else. I realize that's the whole point of this site, but I'm looking to drill down and do this at the very root. (Epistemology.)

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"