Re: Non Physical Experience
John J. Kineman (jjk@NGDC.NOAA.GOV)
Thu, 25 Jun 1998 10:59:19 -0600
OK, I'll play too. However, I'd like to point out that there is value in
"endlessly debating back and forth," which is not necessarily aimless.
These are not questions we are likely to answer. We are developing not
answers, but perspectives on the problem. Each of us is building his/her
own perspective and wondering how much value it will have. The discussion
is extremely helpful for me in improving my ideas and forming a view. A
consensus view is likely to become a political statement, because some of
these views are just different, not incompatible. They have to be developed
before we will know their value, and perhaps only future generations will
know that anyway. There may be no way to amalgamate these views in an
editorial exercise without removing what makes each of them uniquely
valuable. Also, stating one's view in a quotable form is not the same thing
as proposing how to build useful models. Finally, I believe that all of
these views that have been proposed are true. We are not placing limits on
nature by our statements, but rather stating aspects of reality that we
think are important and useful to focus on. I don't believe that any of the
7 statements made so far are disprovable. These are worldviews that provide
a frame of reference for thought, and their value is not tested by
consensus or experiment, but by their ability to frame useful lines of
inquiry and the extent to which useful theories can be formed and tested
within these views. I belive that the view I propose, for example, provides
a useful model of science and a means of integrating scientific inquiry
with experiential and spiritual inquiry, say from inward meditation or
study of one's own psyche. I think it also allows for a more complete
understanding of evolution and ecology, which I have called "autevolution,"
and the formulation of more synthetic (integrated) theories. All these
claims have yet to be demonstrated, but that can only be done by developing
the implied approaches and seeing if they become more generally useful than
others. The view itself is neither right nor wrong, but one test is if it
is generally consistent with all we know so far.
Having said that, here's my revised sound bite:
3. John Kineman proposes that experience is related to 'awareness of
existence' which is a fundamental property of nature that is reflected in
all matter at the quantum level and can be magnified into more elaborate
macroscopic forms by complex living structures. He further proposes that
experience (like existence) is a phonemenon related to the holistic aspect
of nature (a property of the whole), whereas perception (including science)
is based on the complementary analytical view (perceived properties of the
parts)-- In other words, we experience the whole, but we perceive the
parts, and beyond either of these views is the reality their oneness.
Finally, 'data' refer to perceptions of external reality and semantics
refer to perceptions of internal reality; whereas experiential awareness,
being whole, cannot be quantified or described in any terms.
-----------------------------------------------
John J. Kineman, Physical Scientist/Ecologist
National Geophysical Data Center
325 Broadway E/GC1 (3100 Marine St. Rm: A-152)
Boulder, Colorado 80303 USA
(303) 497-6900 (phone)
(303) 497-6513 (fax)
jjk@ngdc.noaa.gov (email)
(303) 497-6513 (fax)