Why is experience limited?

Thank you for sharing this extract Huguette. It helps to shed real light on the problem.

As you say, in this passage (written between the 1930s and 1940s) K draws a clear distinction between the noun form of experience, and its verb form of experiencing. The former is limited, while the latter is not necessarily limited.

This is more or less the issue that was raised in the OP. It is only when the state of experiencing is complicated or interfered with or imposed upon by memory, thought and knowledge, that it turns into what K calls here experience (which is limited).

You also mention the way that the word experience is often used in ordinary life point to the way it is understood as having a relationship to memory and knowledge: such as the importance to a mechanic or cook or engineer of having had long experience. We say of a doctor that he/she is very experienced. Or of a war-photographer that he/she has had a great many experiences on assignment.

We can recall our experiences of being young, of going on family holidays, the experience of having an accident, of going to school, or of falling in ‘love’, etc. And these experiences can be written down and communicated to others.

So we have this one word with two distinct meanings, depending on whether we use the noun form or the verb form:

  1. accumulated knowledge and memory
  2. direct contact with the immediacy of things

And both these meanings point in opposite directions from each other - the former away from the present, the latter towards it. This is perhaps why there is some confusion about the word.

So maybe we can keep this distinction between experience and experiencing in mind, and consider K’s example of what happens when we have had an accident?

Memory is based on knowledge. Right? I have had an experience of a car accident and that incident has been recorded, like the tape which is being now recorded, it is recorded by the brain, and that recording is memory of that incident. Right? Don’t agree with me, just see for yourself. So the function of the brain is to record, and the recording is knowledge. I have had that injury through an accident of a car, and that is recorded as pain and that remains there recorded. That recording is knowledge. Right? Of course. Next time I drive a car I am going to be awfully careful - if you drive a car. So thought, memory, which is the recording as knowledge, that knowledge is based on that experience of an accident. Right? Experience in that car, which has had an accident, which caused pain, a broken leg… So experience, then the brain records that experience as knowledge - right? - then that knowledge is memory and that memory is the movement of thought. Is this clear? … And there is obviously no complete experience of anything. So experience is limited. (Q&A 2, Chennai, 1985)

So K, here, is setting out the origins of thought: All thought is limited because it is based on memory, which is based on knowledge (which is limited), which is based on experience (which is limited).

So all psychological limitation begins with the limitation of experience.

However, if you notice, in K’s example he doesn’t talk about the direct experiencing of the car accident. He is referring to the accident as having already occurred in the past. So the ‘experience’ of the accident is in truth the memory of the accident, not the accident itself.

This is why I said in the OP that if by the word experience one merely means memory, recognition, comparison and knowledge, then it seems strange to use the word experience as though it referred to some distinct activity (apart from thought, memory, knowledge, etc).

What is going on in an experience of something that requires the word “experience”, as opposed to the words “memory”, “thought” and “knowledge”? What is the word experience adding to the picture, which cannot be substituted by the words memory, recognition, thought, knowledge, etc?

As far as I can see, the only element missing from what is otherwise covered by the words thought, memory, knowledge etc, is an actual sense-perception or sense-contact with an actuality.

In a car accident one’s senses are obviously involved, as is the actuality or fact of the accident itself.

The actuality of the car accident is not an invention of thought (even though the car has been put together by thought). And the sense-perceptions of pain, of movement and sudden halt, etc, are actualities when they occur (and so have not been put together by thought).

So the actuality of the incident, and the sense-perceptions of the incident as it occurs, relate to the experiencing of the incident.

And if thought as recognition, knowledge and memory, did not intrude or interfere or impose upon the experiencing of the incident, why need that experiencing be limited?

One might say that it is unlikely - as a practical matter - in a car accident, for a state of pure experiencing to be coherently maintained.

But then one can take a completely different example, but which has all the relevant elements that made up the experience of a car accident:

the looking at a flower.

The actuality of the flower has not been put there by thought. And the sense-perception of the flower is not an invention of thought. So the seeing of the flower - if it can take place without the intrusion of thought and memory - is a state of experiencing, right?

When there is observation of that kind one sees the whole picture, not just a fragment of that picture and when the mind sees the whole picture there is freedom. (Public Talk 2, Saanen, 1967)

While the memory of seeing the flower is merely a memory of an original perception.

So it seems to me that it is only the contribution to experience made by thought and memory (as knowledge) that is the limiting factor, not experiencing itself. It is thought and memory which introduce or project the background of

But experience left to itself (i.e. as mere experiencing) - the direct contact with the flower, the immediacy of the accident - is not a limiting factor as I understand it.

What do you think about this?

Yes. This is what I understand. And so why do we define experience purely on the basis of something that has already occurred in the past, when - as Huguette’s quotation from K points out - experiencing (as it occurs) is not based on memory at all?

If an experience is nothing but memory, why not just use the word memory to refer to it? What is the word experience adding to our understanding of an event?

That is why I brought up the senses. In my understanding an experience involves something more than mere memory, or else why else would we use the word “experience”.

Yesterday I ate an apple. The eating of the apple did not merely involve memory, recognition and knowledge. The apple had a taste, a texture, a shape, a colour, a smell. It happened in what was the then present experiencing of eating the apple.

Hi Vikas - I don’t know if you have read the OP, or if this is just a response to the headline question.

What do you mean by that word experience? Would you admit the possibility of an experiencing without the interference of thought and memory?

Yes, this is what was being suggested in the OP. Although I would probably put it as a question, rather than as an assertion.

And by experience here, I am assuming you mean memory (of previous experiences) and knowledge, right?

Yes. If we have agreed to define “experience” as meaning:

past experience stored up in the brain as memory.

Experience might actually be worse than Memory.
We might be flogging a dead horse here (over-chewing our gum), but to continue with the definition of the word : the Ex of Experience means out of, as in what is derived from - in this case what is derived from experiens/inquiry. It is thus the conclusion of enquiry - its ending, its death in other words.

The question we are asking now seems to be : what does it mean to be experiencing?
The idea of “pure” experiencing seems like an obvious psychological trap from here.

How can experience be “worse” than memory, if all you mean by that word ‘experience’ is memory?

It could be considered worse if we take the etymology of Experience as described above - and define memory as merely a stored narrative of past events.

late 14c., “observation as the source of knowledge; actual observation; an event which has affected one,” from Old French esperience “experiment, proof, experience” (13c.), from Latin experientia “a trial, proof, experiment; knowledge gained by repeated trials,” from experientem (nominative experiens) “experienced, enterprising, active, industrious,” present participle of experiri “to try, test,” from ex “out of” (see ex-) + peritus “experienced, tested,” from PIE *per-yo-, suffixed form of root *per- (3) “to try, risk.” Meaning “state of having done something and gotten handy at it” is from late 15c.

So you have not seen that thought limits the senses therefore denies freedom . To me it is not an assertion,it is so.

I am not disputing with you that thought limits the senses (and so denies freedom). It is of course your prerogative to maintain or articulate whatever clarity you currently feel you have. I merely said that for myself I would rather put this as a question, because it is not the case - as I presently find myself - that ‘my’ senses continually operate without the interference of thought and memory.

Is that the ideal or is it a fact. I think it is an idea because continuity implies thought.

Thanks for giving me the right to post!

I’m not sure that I have understood your comment?

It is a fact for me - as I presently live - that my senses are not free from interference by thought.

You seem to be saying that this is just an idea of my own, and is not factual. But it would be non-factual for me to claim the opposite.

By saying that you are free to say what you like about your current state of clarity I wasn’t giving you a permission that I have no authority to give. I was merely pointing out that the statement of mine you originally reacted to was supposed to convey the limitations that I have - I was not imputing them to you.

Perhaps this is a language issue? as I think English is not your first language - is that correct?

Hi James

The crux of any op is usually the title or the headline. Experience as it is commonly understood and used, is always going to be limited. For reasons i have already explained.

I take it from this that you have no wish to further discuss the matter, having already conveyed your entire response to the question as it was raised in the OP?

I’m not judging your response - I’m just offering you the possibility of saying something more if you feel any wish to.

James you said the above .what does it mean. Never mind the English.

Then you say the opposite. It is confusing,can you clarify without referring to what you said before.

James

There would be a reason to discuss further if there were things that needed to be ironed out or clarified in what was said. Experience is always limited. And it matches our experience. op has been sufficiently dealt.

Part of the reason for the misunderstanding is that you clipped my reply. The whole sentence (edited slightly for additional clarity) was:

This is not the opposite of my saying that

So it is your misunderstanding of what was written I’m afraid (I’m not judging you for it), not mine.

Yes. So you are repeating what you said before, that there is nothing to be discussed about the nature of experience. Ok :+1:

Yes, you are repeating your judgements, even after it is clear your question has been sufficiently addressed. Unless you are disagreeing on what was said, your question “why is experience limited” has been adequately dealt with. Are you disagreeing to what was said? Perhaps if you start another thread which asks about the “nature of experience”, my response, if any, may be different.