At 11:07 16/06/98 -0700, Jim Devine wrote: >The thread is mistitled as "epistemology", due to my error. So I've changed >it again. > > >Ajit now says: >The distinction between the object and the subject may be >important or even essential for the beginning of an 'understanding' or of >some sort of knowledge, but I don't think all sorts of knowledges. The >problem, I think, is when this first step becomes the final step. Where the >meaningfulness of all statements are judged by this 'primary postulate' as >self evidently true.< > >Wait a sec! where did you get this idea that I embraced a "primary >postulate" that was "self evidently true." As an _epistemological skeptic_ >(a phrase I've repeated several times, to no avail), I see a postulate as a >postulate (look it up in the dictionary), not as "true." Please go back and >re-read what I said in this thread. If you do, you'll notice that I never >stated that I believed in self-evident truths. Au contraire. ________________ If it is not true, then why are you holding it? And if it is not self evidently true, then on what other criterion of truth do you justify holding it? As a matter of fact, your several statements, as we will see below, suggest that we cannot take a step in life without holding your "primary postulate". Now assuming that your primary postulate is false, then it turns out that every step in life is built on this falsity, and there is no escape from this falsehood either. Who is postmodern now? I think the logical result of your position is that you hold your primary postulate as self evidently true. ________ > >AS:> I'm no quantum physicist myself. Nor do i play one on internet. But >still at a high level of confidence I can say that you have got it wrong.< > >If you reject the RP, i.e., that reality exists independent of my >perception of it, how could I get it "wrong"? It seems that the words >"right" and "wrong" concerning empirical or even theoretical issues should >be thrown out. (Even logic should be thrown out, no? After all, what's to >say that there's any validity to logic?) Or maybe we could just use them as >they fit our fancy, in order to make rhetorical points. _______________ You got it "wrong" not on the basis of some objective reality criteria but rather on the ground of your *interpretation* of a theory. For example, if one says that Marx was a general equilibrium theorist--a position maintained by many serious scholars--I could say that you got it wrong and make arguments to that effect. But this has nothing to do with an objective reality. There is no objective reality about a theory. __________ > >AS:> Heisenberg's uncertainty principle does not maen that "it's damn hard >to _perceive_ what is going on". What it says is that the subatomic >particle is neither here nor there unless you look. < > >But I notice that you are taking "H's principle" as a matter of _known >truth_, a _fact_ that you're using to knock down the RP. If so, how do you >know that it's true? Shouldn't the principle of "ontological uncertainty" >(which seems the alternative to the RP) tell us that there's no reason to >presume that H's principle applies in all situations, or for that matter, >ever? ________________ I'm definitely not assuming that H's uncertainty principle is a "known truth". I'm simply using it to show the weakness of your argument. My point was that the champion descipline of "objective reality" has come up with results which contradicts its basic postulate quite seriously and it hasn't been able to overcome it yet. That initself should make you a bit humble about your "realist postulate". My position is that there are many sophisticated theories and sophisticated ways of making sense. One can use one against the other to bring out the limitations of one another. That prevents the hegemony of one way of thinking as the correct or only way of thinking, which is what you are advocating. As an antihegemonist, that is a critic of hegemonic thinking, I don't need to "believe" in any theory being true. ________ > >AS:> This is fundamentally a different idea than the problem of measurement >which you are talking about above. The problem of measurement is well known >for centuries. < > >And was well known to me. All I was saying was that there was an >_alternative_ to the Copenhagen interpretation of H's principle, which >included the well-known measurement problem. (BTW, we can assume that this >measurement problem probably exists, given the RP.) ________________ Ya, but this interpretation is pretty lame and it should be rejected on the sole criterion of being uninteresting. _______ > >I don't know what it is about pen-l that gives people the license to >pretend to read my mind and think they know what my attitudes are. And to >do so with such _certainty_! despite rejecting ontological realism! I guess >it's easier than responding to what I said above. _________ Well, some of it gets filtered through our writings I guess. ______ > >If you're not embracing the multiverse theory, how can you see it as >evidence against the RP? _________ As I explained above. It is you who needs to disprove the idea of multiverse to maintain your RP, if your RP implies that there is only one universe. The one objective universe position of yours is in conflict with multi objective universes position. You need to disprove the multiverse position to maintain yours. Until then, you atleast need to be more humble about your RP, and not suggest that one cannot speak or walk or do anything without holding your RP. ______________ > >AS: >But these are not the guiding priniciples of my life. I go from one >foreign culture to another with no certaintly or security of job or life. >In my position most of the people on pen-l would plung into severe >depression within a few weeks. But i go on with life with a sense of humor >and stay productive intellectually. The reason is simple. I'm not looking >for certainty and security, so i don't demand such things from theories. >Theoretical world is more like chess games for me. You make your move >according to the position on the boad, and you try to make your move >interesting so that you make the other party think--that's the whole idea. >Life in general, i.e. one's relationship with other beings, should be >governed by moral postulates. It has very little to do with "objective >knowledge" or whatever.< > >So political economy is just a game. Wow (or rather, "Oh Wow"). Perhaps >that allows you to be happy (and to me there is no doubt that your >happiness is a good thing, ceteris paribus). But you should remember that >to the people of Indonesia, when the IMF/World Bank apply their "medicine," >it's no game. The reality of the world (however hard it is to perceive) >tends to hit people over the head. _____________ I never said that fight against opression and injustice is a 'game'. I think I have suffered and fought against injustice more than you have. But again, I think it is probably a good idea to look at fight against opression and injustice as a game--sometimes a deadly serious game--it keeps your sense of humor alive, which you definitely need in a struggle, as well as keeps you sharp about your stategies and tactics. I'm sure you know that both Walras and Marshall had socialist sympathies; and of course, Stalin thought he was following Marx in building a world free from exploitation! ______________ > >While we're on the subject of our own personal feelings, I guess I should >clarify what mine are, rather than allowing Ajit further license to pretend >to know my opionions without empirical evidence. I am trying to understand >the world because it's often confusing and I would like it to be a better >place. (I guess my efforts to avoid confusion and to have a guide for >practice are the basis for Ajit's postulation of my wish for "certainties >and security" in life.) But I have deep-seated feelings of skepticism about >all theories and "facts." I'm not one to quote authorities as a way to end >this skepticism, since how do we know that _they_ are accurate? Empirical >research, logical analysis, and dialectical philosophy seem necessary. > >All of these do not produce "truths," especially ones that I hold >self-evident (while the idea of "objective knowledge" is silly). This >process produce "working hypotheses" that are subject to further test, >logically, empirically, and in practice. This allows the development of new >working hypotheses, so that knowledge is not a _state_ but a never-ending >_process_ of coming to know the world. __________ That's why we like to argue with you Jim! _____ > >In all of this, the RP is necessary because otherwise there is no sense to >it. _______ that's the problem! Let me tell you something. The Hindus for more than two thousand years have held the belief that the universe is nothing but *Maya* (crudely translated as illusion). Yet they have managed to reproduce, develop varied cultural practices, and communicate with each other in several different languages. How do they do these things without your RP? I think your position is culturally biased, even though it is coming from Roy Bahskar. You seem to think that one needs to believe that there is "objective reality out there" before one can get on with life. But where is the basis for it? ___________ > >BTW, I don't understand why one should apply moral criteria to relations >with other human beings if it's all one big game. Don't you want to trick >your opponent in chess, so that they'll fall into your trap and be >check-mated? ___________ Example of another cultural bias. I had said "other beings", you translated it into "other human beings". I consciously had not put "human" there because I think morality must relate to relationship with *all* beings and not just human beings--and many Hundus and Budhists give status of being to non living things as well. As a matter of fact morality plays an upfront part in any game we play. You hear the word "sporting spirit", which is an alusion to morality, more often during a sporting discourse than most of the other kinds of discourse. And i don't "trick" my opponents and expect them to resign before they get check-mated. But aside from this, my point was that I indulge in theoretical discourse in a sporting spirit and consider myself to be on the side of anti-hegemonic team. Moral discourse is, of course, a more serious game than that. _________ > >[4] AS: >Now to multiverse. In my opinion, in the theoretical space of >multiverse those scientists exists and don't exist at the same time. There >was a possibility that those scientists were not born. This possibility >must play out in a parallel universe where these scientists were not born, >and so don't exist. And both the universes are as *objective* as the other >one! This screws up your "realist postulate" real bad, doesn't it?< > >You can't kill the RP that easily. It's really easy to posit a metauniverse >which includes the multiple universes. In this, there is one universe (or >several) in which the physicists exist. In fact, I have a hard time >understanding how the concept of the multiverse could ever make sense >without positing a metaverse. After all, _in what_ do the multiplicity of >universes exist? ___________ Well Jim, "_in what_ do[es]" your one univese exist? You see when you get to the level of subatomic size or the level of universe or universes the common sensical notion of space and time etc. don't hold, according to the prevalent theories of physics. Physics is an amasing thing you know! ________ > > >[5] AS: >>>The great Philosopher and Mathematical geneious Blaise Pascal >was convinced that he >had experienced God. And Descartes thought he could establish the existence >of God through reasonable arguments.<<< > >JD: >>I don't see the point of this observation to what I was saying. In >any event, my understanding of the "proof of the existence of God" business >is that every proof can be easily turned into a disproof.<< > >AS: >So why not apply this to your own "realist postulate" as well, and >turn it into a non-realist postulate?< > >This gets us back to what I said before (in my discussion with Ricardo in >this thread). The "RP" is NOT about the _content_ of the multiverse that >exists "out there." Strictly speaking, given "epistemological skepticism," >we don't _know_ what exists "out there" (i.e., the content). The "RP" >doesn't say _anything_ about the content. Rather, it simply says that there >is a reality out there which is the basis of our (flawed) perceptions. _____________ Why I can't say that it is all *Maya*? I want a good answer to this question. Cheers, ajit sinha >
