I´m also very heterodox with respect to physics. Although I have a degree
in Physics, or just because that, I understand that physics has exerted a
reductionist fascination that has ruined every social and human science,
including philosophy. Now it has been substituted by information theory,
computer science and biology, which are more appropriate to the
understanding of ultimate existential questions, but the danger still
exist. there are still too much physics envy in human sicences and the
biologist-computationalist reductions may or may be not equally dangerous.
Almost all the human sciences are nothing more that religious sects that
try to explain every human aspect as a result of a single entity that
creates meaning: the notion of "culture" formerly "class" or "race" before
Hitler for example. This is noting but crap. Philosophy has followed this
nonsense until it annihilated itself.
2012/8/23 Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net>
> Dear Alberto,
> I agree with you 100%. I have trouble classifying myself. I am not
> conservative with regard to the current orthodoxy in physics and yet am
> conservative when it comes to philosophical ideas in the sense of rejecting
> relativism and deconstructivism. Post-modern progressives seem to be
> anti-progressive in their actions and so I think of them as just naive or
> On 8/23/2012 1:47 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
> I tend to believe what you say. But, in an effort to be objective, I
> belive that emotionality is the trait that apeear in a culture when it is
> dominant and mostly unchallenged. Now the progressive culture is dominant,
> so the lazy-thinking people go to the progressive culture, but this neither
> is the root nor defines the progressive culture. At least I don´t think
> that people Mill or Rawls are emotional. They may be very coold. However
> there is something demagogic and self-indulgent in every progressive
> ideology, this makes more lazy.thinking people in its side.
> Both groups have two different ideas of what reality is, and two
> different ideas of human nature. Progressives may be or may not be very
> rational, but they start with different beliefs, so that even with equal
> goals, the consequences for action are completely different than in the
> case of conservatives.
> I´m conservative, this is evident, this is a disclaimer, but if I as
> conservative and more or less rational were persuaded that the social
> reality is not a consequence of human nature, but the result of an external
> ideological repression which make very difficult a possible unlimited human
> and material progress , if I were persuaded that all men have not inside
> the seeds for evil, so that the evil could be eradicated by political
> measures, then i would be progressive with the same rationality, and with
> the same goals of doing the best for the whole society.
> For this reason, it is necessary to gain a scientific knowledge of human
> nature, I believe that evolutionary theory brings so. the gofod news for me
> is that the picture that emerges from it is conservative. The bad news is
> that the progressives feels themselves challenged in their beliefs and they
> will not accept it easily.
> 2012/8/21 Roger Clough <rclo...@verizon.net>
>> Hi Alberto G. Corona
>> I suppose I opened a can of worms; I really don't want to
>> get into a political argument, because never the twain shall meet.
>> They speak completely different languages. Two completely different
>> two different tribes always at war with one another.
>> Because of the bicameral mind metaphor (Jaynes and others):
>> *Left brain metaphor*
>> (top or intellectual portion of monad humunculus)
>> Conscious, thinking, discreteness, sequential, control, logic, yang,
>> male, ego,
>> insistent, sun
>> *Right brain metaphor*
>> (feeling or middle portyion of monad humunculus)
>> Subconscious, Feeling, global, nonlinear thinking, submission,
>> aesthetics, yin, female,
>> noninsistent, moon
>> Two different tribes, the ought or moral coming from the right hand brain
>> metaphor, the "is" coming from the left hand brain metaphor. The bicameral
>> Let me just state my basis for the assignments. I think Lakoff wrote a
>> not long ago on the subject of words and politics.
>> Liberal (ought) arguments are usually morally based (we can't let the
>> poor starve
>> so we need to tax the greedy rich) while conservatives try to reply
>> using the "is"
>> weapons of facts and logic (we can't afford that stuff, we're going
>> Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
>> Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so
>> everything could function."
> "Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed."
> ~ Francis Bacon
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> For more options, visit this group at
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at