Dave, Was my memory of my then 7 year-old daughter confusing "oxytocin" and "oxymoron" an instance of trolling or the kind of experience you were alluding to in
"He could never, poor fellow, have seen a bunch of flowers shining with their own inner light and all but quivering under the pre3ssure of the significance with which they were charged; could never have perceived that what rose and iris and carnation so intensely signified was nothing more, and nothing less, than what they were — a transience that was yet eternal life, a perpetual perishing that was at the same time pure Being, a bundle of minute, unique particulars in which, by some unspeakable and yet self-evident paradox, was to be seen the divine source of all existence." ? On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 8:59 AM uǝlƃ ☣ <[email protected]> wrote: > It's not pesky for me in the slightest. I'm *very* interested. I haven't > contributed because it's not clear I have anything to contribute. > > Maybe I can start with a criticism, though. It's unclear to me why you (or > anyone) would delicately flip through crumbling pages of philosophy when > there are fresh and juicy results from (interventionist) methods right in > front of us? The oxytocin post really *was* inspired by this thread. But > because you guys are talking about dead white men like Peirce and James, > it's unclear how the science relates. > > My skepticism goes even deeper (beyond dead white men) to why one would > think *anyone* (alive, dead, white or brown) might be able to *think* up an > explanation for how knowledge grows. I would like to, but cannot, avoid the > inference that this belief anyone (or any "school" of people) can think up > explanations stems from a bias toward *individualism*. My snarky poke at > "super intelligent god-people" in a post awhile back was (misguidedly) > intended to express this same skepticism. I worry that poking around in old > philosophy is simply an artifact of the mythology surrounding the "mind" > and Great Men <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_man_theory>. > > It seems to me like science works in *spite* of our biases to > individualism. So, if I want to understand knowledge, I have to stop > identifying ways of knowing through dead individuals and focus on the > flowing *field* of the collective scientists. > > Of course, that doesn't mean we ignore the writings of the dead people. > But it means liberally slashing away anything that even smells obsolete. > > Regardless of what you do post, don't interpret *my* lack of response as > disinterest or irritation, because it's not. > > On 3/5/20 6:14 AM, Prof David West wrote: > > And the key to my being a pest — is anyone else curious about these > things? > > > -- > ☣ uǝlƃ > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC <http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/FRIAM-COMIC> > http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove > -- Frank Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz Santa Fe, NM 87505 505 670-9918
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
