two-fold nature of experience

Beginning with the professor's recognition of developing ethics for meat consumption while appealing to 'this world empiricism' can allow for various grounded arguments to unfold, which can obviously complicate policy discussions, and continuing with the observances of the class' various thoughts and ideas on our topic of discussions, it became evident to me that even if we can find a common ground to begin our discussion, while appealing to 'this world empiricism', different viewpoints are sure to develop. This made me question whether we are all experiencing the same thing, if a different interpretation arises for every different individual experiencing. Although it appears more likely that, in a discussion, or any experience, what is experienced can be, but not always is, the same (i.e. entertaining the notion of eating meat), yet the experience itself differs from individual to individual. Therefore, what can be taken from any experience is (at least) two-fold. As what is experienced, the other, remains what it is. If it is understood that this remains the same, regardless of who is experiencing it, it can be known and discussed (?). However, as the experience itself of the other varies, is purely subjective, confusion can arise when attempting to find neutral ground. Is a system independent of experience, yet built on what is experienced, possible? And would this help alleviate the debate of naturalism and supernaturalism?

labels

These labels of 'this world', and 'supernatural', though likely necessary for discussion, also hinder the discussion somewhat (perhaps Heidegger would agree, I think). There only is the world and the natural. When some adhere to an explanation that is not empirically verifiable, why must the explanation be thought to be supernatural or other-worldly? I understand, for the sake of attempting to understand each other's ideas, assuming there is an objective reality, distinguishing between those who attribute the nature of something to humans or unconscious Nature, or to a conscious Nature (of course it would be easier to say naturalists or supernaturalists) is helpful. Also, what has become the predominant Christian/Western conception of God (and other non-material entities, etc.) cannot be the idea that dominates the discussion of what is being called 'supernatural'. The interplay (for lack of a better word at the moment) of consciousness, for example, is something we all experience, and yet our experiences vary, and many of these experiences cannot be verified empirically. Does this make consciousness supernatural? Why does it seem to me that many would incline that God as consciousness is a mysterious, yet natural idea, yet God is so often quickly considered supernatural? Perhaps the answer would be because consciousness is an external manifestation of the brain, and therefore, to consider consciousness as God would be foolish. However, this cannot be empirically proven, and even if consciousness did manifest from the brain, this is not to say that it is the only way for it to exist, however irrational this may seem. I am not saying I know where consciousness is or its origins, I am merely saying the question of consciousness (as an example), is open and will likely remain so when it comes to strictly empirical explanations of the various interplay of consciousness. Yet, is consciousness not natural?

I agree with Clark that their needs to be a neutral ground for varying points of view in the public domain, for there is no place in policy or curriculum for what he calls 'supernatural' discussion; whether it is constructed by humans, or intelligently designed into the blueprint of the universe for the sustainability of harmony, what is right and what is wrong, or what is a legitimate interest in the education and preservation of our species, can be agreed upon solely with empirical evidence; yet I also think the common conception of those who appeal to 'otherworldly' or 'supernatural' explanations needs to be revisited, for it is misunderstood, and legitimately has its place in certain inquiries.

I am still unclear as to what is 'supernatural', and why it must be considered so. If it is merely for discussion, it must be used with caution; otherwise some components of our experience will be neglected when they may be vital to our understanding.

this world

In response to those who think Clark is distinctly biased, the concept of "this world empiricism" seems to imply the possibility of another world to which some appeal to help explain events or ideas in this world. However, as noted in my last entry, every one, 'naturalists' and 'supernaturalists', experience what Clark refers to as 'this world'. As Jansen put eloquently, 'this world empiricism' is merely an attitude adopted for discussion, considering the context. Naturalists do not adhere to any 'supernatural' explanations, but 'this world empiricists' can, and those who do, put it aside for the 'this world' context, this is a distinct difference between naturalism and 'this world empiricism'.