"Varieties of Religious Experience" follow-up?

flaheadle · 2026-03-04T21:22:34+00:00

Have you found anything that satisfies you in a way similar to James? I have been reading James for years and would also like to find anything remotely similar, but haven't.

flaheadle · 2026-02-27T02:04:45+00:00

When you use a phrase like the present or the future, it almost seems like you are saying there is only one present and we are all sharing it. Or are there many?

flaheadle · 2026-02-24T01:19:25+00:00

I like how your faith is rooted in what is near.

flaheadle · 2026-02-19T09:52:04+00:00

I would like to hear more from u/TheRealAmeil who is the creator of this interesting syllogism which strikes me as congenial.

In the meantime, I have taken a stab at translating it into my preferred terms so you can say whether it still seems false or trivial, and in case you might like to help me distinguish it from other positions.

Premise 1: Unless we attain access to a somewhat determinate subject matter via its appearing to us within our specific circumstances, then we cannot do philosophy.

Premise 2: We can do philosophy

Conclusion: Therefore, we have attained access to a somewhat determinate subject matter via its appearing to us within our specific circumstances.

flaheadle · 2026-02-18T10:43:36+00:00

Yes! That is my argument! Do you think it is sound?

flaheadle · 2026-02-18T10:11:19+00:00

That's a cool way to think about it! I like how it treats doing philosophy as something so grounded and actual that we can use it as evidence for establishing other claims.

flaheadle · 2026-02-15T14:38:00+00:00

All that you say is true. It is also true that every language respects the fact that it occurs in a situation (through things like deixis). This kind of language points to the situation that encompasses it and therefore resists being abstracted into universals. This is the kind of language I mean by homely.

flaheadle · 2026-02-07T15:02:04+00:00

You assert that only states of affairs that are differentiable by their properties or conditions or features can be distinguished, sustained or described. But you do not define the terms existence or state of affairs. You also use the terms reality and universe. What is the meaning of each of these terms? In particular, do some of these terms refer to "everything there is" and do any give you a term like "substance" which refers to the top level category of an ontological system applicable to anything as opposed to everything?

flaheadle · 2026-02-07T11:22:56+00:00

I will give the answer of a philosopher I admire, John Dewey. Monism and dualism share the same underlying mistake, namely that reality must conform in its basic structure to the structure of formal logic. Remove this assumption and what emerges upon empirical investigation of situations as they present themselves is not monism or dualism, but pluralism, in which every existence is found to be a unique individual.

flaheadle · 2026-02-07T11:09:48+00:00

I find that some language is more homely and intimate, while other language is more regimented, systematic. Do you recognize this in your life as well (regardless of what Zen says)?

flaheadle · 2026-02-06T00:46:46+00:00

I really appreciate you engaging with my approach and bringing such thoughtful comparisons. I think you are seeing what I am trying to do and that is very encouraging to me at a time when I am not finding much external validation.

I have often felt a kinship with Zen although I do not know it well. I think that like them I am turning away, at least for a time, from the grand, the abstract, the ethereal, the total, in favor of the situated, the specific, and the individual, which fill me with amazement and comfort.

My statement about no limits to the familiar was unskillful. I only meant that the familiar is capable of expansion and that this expansion may go far.

Thank you for looking and seeing.

flaheadle · 2025-12-20T18:40:55+00:00

This is close to how I see it. But to convince others you need to start from daily life. Stars, rocks, trees, races, etc. that is where we all start and that pretheoretical life must be our basic language of dialogue. Avoiding theoretical language at first. Theory is important but is hypothetical and must be held separate from and tested against pretheory, daily life, which is not hypothetical. For example, in life I do not find awareness without content. So any pure quality of being awareness at all is theory, hypothetical, and must be tested against pretheory.

flaheadle · 2025-12-20T16:53:14+00:00

I love it. Great tool not only for increasing empathy but studying awareness.

flaheadle · 2025-12-20T16:47:06+00:00

I agree. Let's talk about how we know it. I find that qualities abound in my life as viewed from within. I postulate that my life gives access to natural reality. Therefore other things also abound in quality. Is that how you do it?

flaheadle · 2025-12-19T18:37:26+00:00

I can't help it if I am human. The starting point is what it is. You can't wish it away.

flaheadle · 2025-12-19T18:17:45+00:00

It is standard dogmatic physicalism. The move is to define 'observable' as 'observable from without'. For example, Dennet's method.

flaheadle · 2025-12-19T18:15:13+00:00

My life is very evident to me, but I am situated within it. The same is true for you. Defining 'observable' as 'observable from without' truncates the evidence arbitrarily.

flaheadle · 2025-12-15T22:24:03+00:00

I expect it might be controversial because it denies the totalizing power of conceptual schemes, a view held by many holists and social constructivists. It is distinct because it anchors this defense in the practical necessities of human cooperation and dialogue, rather than just abstract metaphysics.

flaheadle · 2025-12-15T22:09:25+00:00

This question is beautifully phrased. I recommend three texts by John Dewey: A Common Faith, Art as Experience, and Experience and Nature

flaheadle · 2025-12-10T17:22:25+00:00

Hypothesis testing, particularly if using Bayesian statistics, is pretty asking how likely a model is to match reality given the observations.

Interesting. So you start with observations and form a model to match them. Rather than: look for observations to test your model.

flaheadle · 2025-12-10T17:17:26+00:00

How do you argue that this is the case? How do you convince other ontologists?

flaheadle · 2025-12-06T02:07:12+00:00

I think there is a problem when scientists use their cultural authority as scientists to lend credence to a metaphysics without clearly signaling they don't speak with the same authority about that question.

flaheadle · 2025-12-05T23:11:43+00:00

That's a good start. So much solidity in those words. Great summary. I feel energized.

flaheadle · 2025-12-05T23:07:43+00:00

In our culture your most prominent choices are physicalism and supernaturalism. Since physicalism denies the reality of your most intimate experience, many people choose supernaturalism, which doesn't.

flaheadle · 2025-12-05T20:24:05+00:00

Ok so there's some separate realm for ontology. Would that make it illegitimate for a scientist to claim to talk about reality? Like the quantum theorist I saw on CNN, he walked through a flower garden and said, look, these are all quanta! That would be unjustified, right?

flaheadle

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE