Showing posts with label William James. Show all posts
Showing posts with label William James. Show all posts

Wednesday, May 15, 2013

Letter from the Editors: May 2013 -- The Beginning, Again

PHOTO: Olav Bryant Smith

THE BEGINNING, AGAIN

This issue begins our second year of publication and a new era for Empirical. As Dylan said, “the times they are a-changin’.” An amazing amount of work went into bringing you a new magazine that looks, feels, and reads the way we, and the growing Empirical community, want a magazine to look, feel, and read. We started in October 2011 with this daring idea that we could produce a magazine that fills a niche no one else is filling. Actually, to go back even further, we were talking about the ‘dream’ of starting a magazine in April 2005 when Tara and I first met in Portland. I had done some research on this myself before we’d met, but put it on the back-burner while I focused on keeping my teaching career going in these lean times of budget cuts. Little did I know when I first brought it up that Tara would eventually start editing for a lifestyle magazine and that she would start seriously thinking about carrying out our dream.

When we first started on this path, it seemed so natural for us in a way. Tara and I had both had years of editing experience. We are both writers. We’d both worked for publications. I had some design experience. Tara had worked at printers and knew about ink, papers, and other printing issues. I’ve only dabbled at fiction and poetry, but this was Tara’s love, and she has an MA in creative writing. My forte was the nonfiction side. I have an MA in Philosophy and a PhD in Philosophy of Religion. I’ve been reading, writing, and blogging about social and political issues for years. Our talents and interests both intersected and complemented one another’s.

THE NAME “EMPIRICAL”: THE RISK OF MISUNDERSTANDING

William James

The name ‘Empirical’ came to Tara in a flash. I could tell this flash of inspiration had really hooked her, and she was convinced this was the name. For my part, an entire philosophical controversy came flooding into my thoughts and feelings all at once with the name ‘Empirical.’ On the philosophical side of things, I knew that many would misinterpret the name. ‘Empiricism’ and ‘science’ are almost synonymous for many people. After what Alfred North Whitehead called the “unbridled rationalism” of the medieval period in Europe, with the pendulum swinging more toward theory than fact, thinkers of both the Reformation and the Renaissance urged a return to gathering and re-examining the evidence. With the rise of modern science, the emphasis was on limiting acceptable evidence to what one can observe with the five physical senses. This proved spectacularly helpful in weeding out highly speculative theories that didn’t really match the evidence empiricists began to present. This approach has its limits even within science. But many people are completely and unabashedly behind this spirit of scientific advance; they are all in favor of shoving other avenues to knowledge aside. In fact, there are many of this persuasion who would say there is no other path to knowledge. So what, I thought, would these people make of our more poetic and spiritual approach to things? They might not find what they were looking for in our pages on the basis of the title alone. The other side of the same issue is that those who would most appreciate our approach might shy away from our magazine because of the name, assuming it is narrowly empirical when they desire the more holistic approach that we offer.

RADICALLY EMPIRICAL

Alfred North Whitehead
It was a risk, but I saw an opportunity in this name–an opportunity to create a discussion about what it really means to be ‘empirical.’ As a philosopher in the process and classical-American traditions, I’d long been persuaded–by Willetter from the editors William James and Alfred North Whitehead in particular–that we should embrace what James called a ‘radical empiricism’ that examines all of the evidence of experience and not just the narrow band of experience acceptable to what we now call ‘science.’ James, Whitehead, and others pointed out (as Berkeley, Hume, and others had before them) how the narrow brand of empiricism leads to skepticism about our own existence, the world’s existence, causality, and thus  undermines science itself. Most scientists ignore this because they’re busy doing science and don’t care about Hume’s arguments.

Many scientists are even religious themselves and compartmentalize their scientific and religious lives because of basis intuitions that transcend their discipline. But others ignore this because they’re motivated by anti-religious reasons. James, however, embarked on studies of religious experience and parapsychology.

Whitehead explained how our fundamental, felt, preconscious experience of an interconnected world at the
very least explains things like memory and knowledge of the actual world – unexplainable by narrow empiricism. So, it is important to grasp that our understanding of ‘empirical’ is different than the standard conception. Empirical’s mission statement of purpose thus reads:

An international literary and current affairs magazine with the openness and pioneering spirit of its home in the Pacific Northwest, Empirical aspires for truth by boldly introducing thought-provoking points of view and new paradigms. A forum for discourse on contemporary issues, the magazine is “radically empirical” in considering the broad range of human experience.

Being ‘radically empirical’ is progressive; it is tolerant of new ideas and experiments in living. It is not fear-based. It is hope-based. It embraces different expressions of spiritual experience–in art and elsewhere–and stands against the dogmatic suppression of this variety of spiritual experience by both those who embrace more mainstream religious practices and those who pride themselves on participating in the goal of the
destruction of religions and the banishment of all reports of meaningful human experience as “subjective.” And in the end, the ideal is to bring science and spirituality together in a unified view.

PACIFIC NORTHWEST

San Francisco
PHOTO by Curtis Fry
Thus, it also made sense for Tara and me–because we met while we were both living in Portland and now live in Northern California–to connect our project with the Pacific Northwest. My year’s sojourn into what most people consider to be the Pacific Northwest, including mainly Oregon and Washington State, convince me that there is much that connects Northern California with the Pacific Northwest. In many ways, Northern California – particularly including the San Francisco Bay Area – has more in common with Portland, Seattle, and Vancouver BC than it has with the cities of Southern California. So, in addition stretching the common understanding of ‘empirical,’ we are also–intentionally and purposefully trying to stretch the common notion of the community of the ‘Pacific Northwest.’ There is a community that stretches from San Francisco to Vancouver BC that is highly technological, innovative, tolerant, inclusive, progressive, and broadly spiritual. We strive to achieve new paradigms and welcome experiments in lifestyle–not for just for the sake of experiment or to be ‘different,’ but because we live in the spirit of hope for a better tomorrow. We are a part of that community and so much of our vision has to do with sharing our perspective of the world with everyone else.

At the same time, it should be understood that we are not a regional magazine. Our focus is on the world. But one of the things that Tara and I realized when we started out on this project was that most magazines of this type have a New York or Northeast perspective. Empirical contributes to our ongoing effort to understand ourselves and the world we live in from a particular point of view: a Pacific Northwest  perspective. We recognize that, are proud of that, and very openly acknowledge that we’re expressing a vision from a community that is bigger than the two of us. But it’s about the world and its varieties of experience, written and illustrated by authors and artists from around the world.

GOING DIGITAL


Our desire was to be in print, and to compliment that with the new wave of digital access. But to be in print for long, we would have to win over a distributor and then attract an investor or investors. Moreover, we’d have to attract customers quickly. We succeeded in the first two, which is no small thing. By February 2012, we’d produced a prototype that attracted the attention of Rider Circulation Service in Los Angeles. When we saw them face-to-face and showed them on a laptop what we were up to, they were excited about the possibilities and told us enthusiastically that they wanted to distribute Empirical. That prototype issue was dated May 2012, and we have been in bookstores throughout the US and around the world since our first actual monthly issue of June 2012. And we have recently been honored by the Library Journal as one of the top ten new magazines of 2012–an honor indeed.

An award like that helps spread the word about the good things we’re doing, but it didn’t come quickly enough to help us stay in print. Our circulation is growing, but not enough people heard about us quickly and frequently enough to keep up with the enormous costs of printing and shipping. That’s just reality.

We’d been seeing others turn toward digital publication at an accelerating pace. Holding a magazine in one’s hands has practical and aesthetic value. We appreciate that fully. But the fact is that our economy is shifting toward the spread of information through electronic means. The true cost of getting a printed quality
publication, which we competitively estimated at seven dollars per issue, or fifty-five dollars per year, is beyond what many people are able or willing to spend right now.

So, facing these realities, we are looking at the positive side of this transition. It’s time to look forward and not back. We are going to continue bringing you more of the best writing in the world, exploring human experience from new points of view, and growing the Empirical community. We’ll be able to do that with even more brilliant color than ever.

I’ve been hard at work redesigning the magazine in a shorter, wider format with larger fonts so that it’s easier to see and use on our screens. And, the bottom line, we can do all of this for the much more affordable price of one dollar per issue, or ten dollars per year. Times are tough. But now nearly everyone who wants to join and support our Empirical community of readers can afford that. 

THIS ISSUE: MAY 2013

We lead off our second year of publication with another article by Dorion Sagan, son of the astronomer Carl Sagan and biologist Lynn Margulis. Dorion wrote for us the first time in September (see “Lynn Margulis and the Pursuit of Knowledge”). This time, Dorion explores–in “The Problem of Intelligence”– the idea that human beings may be overestimating their intelligence, asking, “Is not an ecosystem–whose different species, with different skills and specialties, combine to make sustainable biological systems–arguably more intelligent, smarter, than a single species which overruns its environment, risking extinction?” Building on themes related to Huxley’s Brave New World, and pointing to the danger of social Darwinist theories, Sagan shows us how it may be time to look to the wisdom of nature for true clues about survival. 

Dave Lewit, writing for Empirical for the first time, discusses the central importance of economics in history and the control over the money supply in the US. Noting the Fed’s enormous bailouts of banks, Lewit makes positive suggestions about a way forward through similar investments in workers and the creation of public banks that are overseen by more publicly-minded virtues than the Fed and private banks value.

Frequent contributor Hugh Mercer Curtler writes this month “On Being Judgmental.” Hannah Arendt’s coverage of the war-crimes trial of Adolph Eichmann led to her shock at being considered too judgmental in her coverage of Holocaust atrocities. Curtler builds on this, and comments on our descent toward amoralism through the phenomenon of eschewing judgment. But Curtler points out that to think is to judge. And thinking people, he argues, do not need to pit one culture against another to uphold core values that are widely embraced around the world.

The March and April issues of Empirical saw the beginning of a three-part series on Cuba by Andrea St. Amand. That series is concluded in this issue with “Cuban Life Without Bribery: Lessons From Estonia, Part III.” The Estonian connection is Andrea’s husband. On their trip to Cuba, and based on her husband’s first-hand experience of the transition to democracy and capitalism after the fall of the Soviet Union, Andrea speculates about how life might be with more economic freedom in Cuba’s near future.

This month’s fiction includes “Sun Boxes” by Phyllis Green and “Children of the Tides” by Frank Scozzari.
May’s poetry includes “Mink” by Wally Swist; “Out to Win The World For God: Howard Finster” by Patrick Milian; “among the families of the earth,” Richard Thompson; “Plaint For Rattus norvegicus” by Elisavietta Ritchie; and “Contender” by Monique Roussell. Our featured photographer section is “A Moment
With Wonderlane.” I discovered her work while searching for Buddhist photography, and have since found her work extremely helpful for illustrations of many of our articles. We finally got a chance to interview her and hear her interesting story. As always, our pages conclude with recipes from Tara and Rafaela.

Empirical is committed to continuing to bringing you the best, and we also wish you the best. As we make this transition to exclusive digital publication, please let us know what we can do to improve our service to you; and please spread the word about the quality you find here. We can’t do it without you. 

Tuesday, October 23, 2012

Getting to Know Empirical


We here at Empirical are proud of the quality magazine we produce every month, despite pillars of the publishing community, like Newsweek, deciding to go digital. We believe that having a physical copy in hand is the very essence of what sets us apart from other magazines. Empirical is going to be increasing its efforts over the next couple of months to bring you multimedia and social networking opportunities to interact and learn more about the magazine. 

If you have read the magazine, please share your impressions with your friends and family to help grow the Empirical community. If you have not had read our wonderful magazine yet, then stop reading this post and go out and get a copy. (You can visit us at http://www.empiricalmagazine.com/ to find out how to subscribe to the publication or purchase single copies.) 

Additionally, if you really loved our magazine, we would love to see user videos (no more than a minute or two) describing what about the issue resonated with you. We are going to be compiling these types of video clips over the next couple of months to add to the Empirical YouTube channel, which is coming soon to a laptop near you. 

To further acquaint yourself with the magazine, we have been providing posts about some of the quality works that we have published in Empirical. Please take a moment to read them when you have the time. 



Tuesday, July 24, 2012

"Putting the Radical into Empirical" by Olav Bryant Smith

This letter from the editor appeared in the July 2012 issue of Empirical magazine. You can preview and buy the digital version here or subscribe to the hard copy of the magazine here.

Much of the emphasis in the introductions to our previous issues has been on what we mean by the term “empirical.” We love science at Empirical, but we don’t believe that narrowly defined science, as in the advice to not believe something unless you see it, tells the whole story. Science at its best is informed by the humanities, including art, literature, poetry, philosophy, history, religion, and even that sacred literature known as “mythology.”

That is what William James was after when he coined the phrase “radical empiricism.” His belief was that all of the evidence of our experience, much of it reported by the humanities, has to be taken into consideration as we attempt to arrive at the truth about the nature of ourselves and the world we live in.

Truth, of course, is often called a “relative” term, and the implication to many people today is that there is no Truth to be found. Radical empiricists, along with many scientists, of course, hunger after the Truth. This hunger is what drives us to weed out the untrue from what we find to be true. And we do this by gathering evidence and discussing it in light of other experience and other evidence.

The problem that arises in the pursuit of the Truth, and what makes our individual truths “relative,” is the fact that each Truthseeker is limited in terms of experience, and limited in terms of our ability to process the information of that limited experience. Most of what we know, we know through a process of induction. We observe patterns in Nature as we collect the data of experience. But we can never be sure that what we’ve seen in the past is an accurate representation of the limits of Nature. We can never be sure that there isn’t relevant information that we’ve left out. We do our best. But as William James told us, it only takes one white crow to prove that they’re not all black.

But we’re creatures of habit, and fortunately, the Universe seems to be made up of other creatures of habit. We see patterns, we accustom ourselves to those patterns, and we make due as best we can in most cases. And it works out most of the time. The last thing we want as we’re trying to finish a job is to see someone rocking the boat by saying that things aren’t quite the way we think they are.

About 2500 years ago, the Greek philosopher Plato told a story about some prisoners chained up in a cave. We’re not supposed to take this story literally. It’s an allegory. But like other forms of symbolic fiction, including our sacred myths, it lifts up truths that we’d find it hard to understand any other way. That’s why Jesus told parables. It makes it easy to understand the deeper truths.

So we suspend our disbelief for the time being when Plato tells us that these prisoners can’t see themselves or their neighbors. All they can see is some shadows on the walls that are created by some guys behind them carrying shapes in front of a fire. The prisoners’ fate depends on how well they can interpret the shadows, so some of them get quite good at it.

One day, we’re told, a prisoner is freed, but as he turns toward the fire, his eyes have a hard time adjusting. He is pulled up a hill toward the mouth of the cave, but he resists. He is afraid of the unknown, and he is disoriented. But making the best of what seems like a bad situation, the liberated prisoner adapts. Just when he thinks the worst is over, however, he is taken into the direct light of the sun, and then it is really hard to see. The prisoner had lived his entire life in a world of darkness and shadow with only the smallest hints of light breaking into that darkness.

Eventually, Plato tells us, this prisoner’s eyes adjust, first seeing a reflection in a pond, and then being able to see things as they really are. The prisoner realizes, in what we might think of as an epiphany, that being able to see the Truth about things is dependent on the light of the sun breaking into an otherwise dark world.

It is one of our great sources of hope and inspiration in literature that the prisoner does not rest self-contentedly with this new knowledge. The prisoner remembers his neighbors and friends and returns to the darkness of the cave to let them know that they are living in a world of shadow and illusion.

One is reminded here of the Buddha being told by Mara, “the evil one” of Buddhist scripture, that he should take what he has found, i.e., enlightenment, and leave this earthly realm. The Buddha is told that no one would understand what he had to say about Nirvana anyway. But the Buddha responded “Some will understand.”

Our liberated prisoner in Plato’s story evidently felt the same way. So he returned. But upon his return, his friends and family noticed there was something different about him. Something peculiar. He saw things in a different way than he had before. They might even tell him, “You used to be good at interpreting these shadows. Now you’re not even interested in it. What’s wrong with you?”

The liberated prisoner has become a “radical” in the story. He’s rocking the boat. It makes it uncomfortable for the other prisoners in the cave. They’re just trying to make do with a bad situation. They’re not sure there is a Truth, and they’re not sure they want to hear it even if there is one. Plato tells us that if the liberated prisoner keeps it up, he’s even likely to be killed. People don’t like “radicals” coming around with even the best of intentions.

Plato had Socrates in mind as the liberated prisoner. When Greek-educated converts to Christianity compared the story of Jesus of Nazareth with this allegory, they imagined Jesus in the role. As I’ve indicated, the Buddha fits the role as well. The fact is that all of these wonderful Truth-seeking and Truth-bearing radicals through history have found themselves in just this situation. The word radical itself comes from the word for “root.” These radicals get at the roots of the problems we face, and when they do that, it often means pulling up some weeds that we’ve grown quite accustomed to in our daily lives.

In this issue of Empirical magazine, we celebrate the radicals: people like George Washington, who rebelled against the British Empire in pursuit of justice and freedom; the Great Soul “Mahatma” Gandhi, who taught us the power of non-violent resistance to evil by leading his people to independence from the British; Martin Luther King, Jr., who built on this non-violent model to awaken the conscience of Americans who had slumbered through an American apartheid that we called “segregation”; Rosa Parks, who refused to accept that her “place” was in the back of the bus; Robert F. Kennedy, whose conscience would not allow him to sit idly by and ignore the injustices of that American apartheid; Susan B. Anthony, who had the “nerve” in the 19th-century to insist that women should be given the right to vote; and Caesar Chavez, who helped us to see and understand the plight of immigrant and migrant farm workers in America. The list is long, fortunately, of these spiritual heroes–more than I can name here.

Yes, there are many injustices that we are just too busy to notice. And there are many injustices that will require some uncomfortable change in order to find remedies. But thank God for the radicals who, upon empirically gathering the evidence of their experience, shine their reflected light on our otherwise dark worlds.

Read John B. Cobb's article, "The Importance of Being Radical" here.