Why Not Explain

In today’s class Jack said that TSK did not seek to explain, because an explanation would take us away from direct experience.

An additional observation is that explanations tend to be given within the context of the prevailing paradigm. If we truly want a new way of knowing, it makes no sense to explain phenomena  in terms of the conventional paradigm we are seeking to challenge.

The word experience and the word experiment have the same Greek root. Seems we are being invited to do both.

Hayward

About Hayward

Clinical Psychologist and practicing psychotherapist for thirty seven years. Studying Time Space and Knowledge since 1980 and integrating this vision into clinical practice as seemingly appropriate and useful.
This entry was posted in uncatagorized, 2010/2011 TSK Online Course. Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to Why Not Explain

  1. tinac says:

    Hey Hayward,

    It’s still nice to ‘compare’ notes. LOL. I think there are ways to articulate direct experience without limiting it. TSK does ‘explain’ a lot of things, but it tries to do so, open~endedly. I guess we can look at it as a door. A door closes, but it also opens. TSK invites us to open all things that limit. If something ‘limits’ us, it can also be the very thing that can set us free, or ‘open’ our understanding

    I think too, that these ‘explanations’ are more about interpretating our experience ‘out of’ past ‘structures of knowledge’, whether they be philosophocal, religious, or scientific, or any other kind of ‘known structure’. That, in my mind, is what prevents us from knowing anew.

    What might we discover within this embodiment of Knowledge, that is there awaiting our awareness of it, when we open up the labels we carry forward from ‘known strutures’?

    Much love, Tina.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *