“What’s done is done, the bullet’s left the gun”: Questions on the Application, Origin, and Metaphysics of the «Course-of-Experience Framework»
Adaptive Behavior May 20, 2022 DOI: 10.1177/10597123221094356 via OpenAlex
Summary
AI-generated from the abstractThis commentary applauds the Course-of-Experience method for integrating micro-phenomenology, enactivism, and Peircean semiotics to study lived experience, but raises three concerns: how it compares to similar methods, why Peircean semiotics is essential, and whether it inherits problematic assumptions about pre-reflective experience from micro-phenomenology.
Study at a glance
| Characteristics | Commentary Peer reviewed |
|---|---|
| Keywords | Metaphysics Enactivism Semiotics Phenomenology philosophy Epistemology |
| Citations | 3 |
| Key finding | The Course-of-Experience method is promising but has unresolved issues regarding comparison to other methods, the necessity of Peircean semiotics, and potential epistemological and metaphysical problems from micro-phenomenology. |
Abstract
The Course-of-Experience presents an interesting method for working with others’ experience, drawing on Micro-phenomenology (MP), Enactivism, and Peircean semiotics. It addresses possible applications to cognitive science, answering to a call about how to reliably integrate phenomenological data and experimental methods. I applaud the ambitious framework presented in the target paper, and hope that Poizat and colleagues in response or in later work will address three potential shortcoming: (1) How does the framework fare in comparison to similar methods. (2) Why is Peircean semiotics necessary for the framework? 3) Does it need to copy what seems to be epistemological and metaphysical infelicities concerning pre-reflective experience directly from MP?