John Gunkler wrote:
>About ghosts: I can understand that "the belief in ghosts" has empirical
>content -- and that it creates effects in the world. That does not mean
>that "ghosts" have empirical content. Does that distinction make sense
>to you?
Theoretically yes. This is, why I came to use the word ghost - something
that is not really real, but with very real impact - something that only
becomes real by means of believing in it.
But practically, for those who believe in such a ghost, it is the ghost
itself that has empirical content. Think for example of halluzinations as
part of mental illnesses. Recognizing a ghost as a ghost (just a belief)
doesn't make it disapear.
You can fight them or utilize them. Most exciting is to transform them.
Did you ever meet in your dreams something dangerous and transformed it
into a friend? Much more satisfactory than to wake up with fear and
telling yourself repeately: "Just a dream, not real..."
Liebe Gruesse,
Winfried
--"Winfried Dressler" <winfried.dressler@voith.de>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>