Felix, I haven't read the book, but I would posit that the analysis would be
seriously flawed if it did not take into account that whatever the architecture
of the human system, it was fully embedded in the wider ecosystem of energy
flows. Because of that embeddedness, all forms of human
Thank you
I spotted this review yesterday
https://amp.theguardian.com/books/2021/oct/23/the-dawn-of-everything-by-david-graeber-and-david-wengrow-review-inequality-is-not-the-price-of-civilisation
and now look forward to the LSE seminars and more!
cheers
molly
Sent from my iPhone
> On Dec 9,
So, basically, magic is indistinguishable from any sufficiently advanced
technology. I mean, if we can't distinguish the two, then the observation
should cut both ways, right? But Arthur C. Clarke's formulation, "any
sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic," is the only
"As a one-time theoretical physicist, I find this quote from Gosden to be
out-dated, overly reductive, and incorrect, at least as far as the most
thoughtful scientists go."
Hmm. Well, there are thoughtful scientists who would immediately recognise in
the Gosden gobbet the story of the late
On 09/12/2021 06:59, Michael Goldhaber wrote:
> As a one-time theoretical physicist, I find this quote from Gosden to
> be out-dated, overly reductive, and incorrect, at least as far as
> the most thoughtful scientists go.
>
> Scientific understanding doesn’t “derive from abstraction,” but
>
As a one-time theoretical physicist, I find this quote from Gosden to be
out-dated, overly reductive, and incorrect, at least as far as the most
thoughtful scientists go.
Scientific understanding doesn’t “derive from abstraction,” but rather the
other way round. It doesn’t separate humans
On 08/12/2021 18:02, Joseph Rabie wrote:
>
> I am really wary of terms like magic, beyond seeing them as a poetic
> metaphors (helpful & useful, as such) for things that escape us, or
> transcend us, or that are incomprehensible to us, even though they
> are clearly there (consciousness, for
I agree that now, any significant work has to deal with humanity's
relations to the environment. And as somebody who looks to art, cosmology
and science as the triple way to deal, Chris Godsen's book on the history
of magic sounds intriguing (see MP's post). But as far as I've gotten with
David
I'm really wary of terms like synthesis.
Gary
On 08/12/2021 17:31, mp wrote:
It's titled 'The History of Magic: From Alchemy to Witchcraft, from the
Ice Age to the Present' (2020) and he sets out to bring together the
triple helix in a vision that incorporates elements of the inter-species
> Le 8 déc. 2021 à 18:31, mp a écrit :
>
> "...We will continue to use science to understand and change the world.
> But magic has an older sibling’s capacity to calm the energies of
> science and its technologies, allowing us to think about the ends to
> which scientific discoveries can be
Hi Felix,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I've been enjoying listening to various
podcasts and interviews with Wengrow but I haven't got around to the book
yet. LSE have had a seminar series recently on Graeber's work which is
worth checking out. The final seminar is this week -
Thanks for this...
On 06/12/2021 11:28, Felix Stalder wrote:
> While the book is great, it has a glaring hole in it. What is almost
> entirely missing is the discussion of how this "carnival parade" of
> social forms structured the relation to the environment, or, more
> generally, how they were
So, I finished reading "The Dawn of Everything", the new book by David
Graeber and David Wengrow. In many ways, it's the perfect book for our
dark historical moment. It's all about historical possibilities, yet not
in the future, but in the past. Thus, an escape and an inspiration.
It's an
13 matches
Mail list logo
