KARL JASPERS FORUM

TA63 (Lesli / Reed)

Commentary 24 (to C19, Müller)

( 0-D AND MIR )
by Glenn C Wood
28 December 2003, posted 18 January 2004

I'd like to respond to HM's response to Meijden's wondering about the repetitive value of "0-D" and "MIR" language.

First: I can see the value of HM concerns regarding the mind-brain problem, as I think Meijden does, and see the dangers of the HM formula; but it presents as great a problem when coupled with HM's acuity and invaluable academic experience which gives religiously pedagogic-like strength to anything HM proposes. His formula presents an even greater danger when attempts are made to apply such to philosophy and theology. Here he is out of his personal encompassing world of experience I think.

Secondly: The discussion should not be concluded, and though my criticism has bordered disrespect, what I have learned and been taught in these discussions has been of sabbatical value to one committed to learning. The repetition of HM's position relative to other views has had educative value for me, for:

Lastly: I'm in a better comprehensive position now of working on that TA regarding the work I did in the late sixties on hitting bottom in reason and emotion (the Existenz philosophy of KJ applied...). It takes up where HM's "0-D" and "as-if-MIR" flounders in not meeting scientific methods: failing to meet the empirical test, violates parsimony, objectivity, and convergence of evidence requisite to unlimited communication. The scientific principle too is escaped by an "as-if" approach to the encompassing we are and the encompassing we are in.

I'm looking forward to comments on the Article. How to reduce it appropriately for the Forum is no quick task.

-------------------------------------

Glenn C Wood

e-mail <glenncwood@zianet.com>