If what we have encountered here is the limits of discourse, why are we talking?
Nick, Because consummatory behavior is rewarding in its own right --- Frank C. Wimberly 505 670-9918 Santa Fe, NM On Sat, Mar 14, 2020, 10:30 AM <[email protected]> wrote: > .... and if we have not gone beyond the bounds of discourse, HOW shall we > talk? > > N > > Nicholas Thompson > Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology > Clark University > [email protected] > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] <[email protected]> > Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2020 10:27 AM > To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' < > [email protected]> > Subject: RE: [FRIAM] science privilege — fork from acid epistemology > > Dave and Glen, > > It's great to see your two frames coming into adjustment. At the risk of > taking the discussion back to absurdity, let me try to express, in > laughably simple terms, what I hear you guys agreeing to. > > I have been taught a way of thinking about science that is western. Like > all ways of thinking it both sights me and blinds me. Nobody knows > everything; everybody knows what they know. Nobody should presume to judge > what they don't know. I don't know Eastern ways of thinking. I have no > basis on which to claim privilege for my western ways of thinking about > science. > > Now, as a person who has always delighted in attending discussions among > people who do not agree, and always fascinated by the possibility of > convergence of opinion, what do I do when Dave (or Kim, or others) > highlight the fact that there are whole ways of thinking that I just do not > know anything about? > > One way would be to shrug. AW heck, you go your way, I will go mine. I > can't do that. Shrugging is just not in my natire. I need to try to > integrate discordant ideas held by people I respect. Now, it is possible > that need is, in itself, Western. And what an eastern philosophy would > tell me is to put aside that need. Often developmental psychologists > among my acquaintances have asserted that my quest for agreement is a kind > of invasion of their mental territory, that each person is entitled to his > own individual and pristine experience. > > Let's say you come to me and tell me that you hold in your hand an > instrument of great wisdom, a revolver. And if I will only put it to my > head, and pull the trigger, I will have knowledge and understanding beyond > anything I can now imagine. I would be reluctant to follow that advice. > Is that western? > > Let's say, I say to you that "to speak of that of which we cannot speak" > is non-sense. To say, as an occasional member of the home congregation > occasionally says, "What if there is a world out there which is totally > beyond all forms of human understanding" is non-sense. As Wittgenstein > says, the beetle divides out. Is an Eastern philosopher going to reply, > "Ah Nick, such a paradox is not non-sense but the beginning of wisdom." > > Or perhaps, the eastern philosopher would say, No, No, Nick, you have it > all wrong. If you seek that sense of convergence, go for it directly. > Don't argue with dave and Glen, hug them, drink with them, play Russian > roulette. What you seek cannot be found with words! > > If what we have encountered here is the limits of discourse, why are we > talking? > > Nick > > > > Nicholas Thompson > Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology Clark University > [email protected] https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Friam <[email protected]> On Behalf Of u?l? ? > Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2020 8:28 AM > To: FriAM <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] science privilege — fork from acid epistemology > > > FWIW, I agree completely with your gist, if not with your pique. The lost > opportunity is implicit in the ebb and flow of collective enterprises. > Similar opportunity costs color the efforts of any large scale enterprise. > I can't blame science or scientists for their lost opportunities because > triage is necessary [†]. But there is plenty of kinship for you out there. > I saw this the other day: > > Your Mind is an Excellent Servant, but a Terrible Master - David Foster > Wallace > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsAd4HGJS4o > > I'm tempted to dive into particulars on your examples (Vedic, Buddhist, > Hermetics). But my contributions would be laughable. I'll learn from any > contributions I hope others make. I've spent far too little of my life in > those domains. > > [†] Both for the individual trying to decide what to spend their life > researching and the whole (as Wolpert points out < > https://ti.arc.nasa.gov/m/pub-archive/1476h/1476%20(Wolpert).pdf>). Most > of the prejudice I encounter doesn't seem mean-spirited, though. Even > virulent scientismists seem to be victims of their own, personally felt, > opportunity costs. > > On 3/14/20 3:21 AM, Prof David West wrote: > > Glen, I really appreciate your response and insights. > > > > You are certainly correct that much, or most, of my pique is simply > impatience. But, I am here now, with these questions, and with a limited > window within which to be patient. Should my great grandchildren have my > interests, Science might serve them well, but is is frustrating right now. > > > > Science is far more reflective that I generally give it credit for. Your > examples, save one, illustrate that. The one that I object to is "assessing > scientific literacy" which, based on limited exposure, seems to be more of > "checking to see if you are bright enough to agree with us" than evaluating > what it would mean to be scientifically literate. > > > > A closely related, I think, topic is the push by computer science to > have "computational thinking" embedded in elementary and secondary > education as "essential." Computational thinking is exactly the wrong kind > of thinking as most of the critical things we need to think about are not > algorithmic in nature. The scientific and computational part of the climate > crisis is the easy part. figuring out the complex > social-cultural-economic-politcal answers to the problem is the hard part > and I doubt it is reducible to scientific thinking and absolutely positive > it is not amenable to computational thinking. > > > > Maybe when Hari Seldon has his psychohistory all worked out it will be > > different. :) > > > > It may very well be possible to develop a science of philosophy, but it > will require relinquishing what, again to me, appears to be a double > standard. Scientists are willing to wax philosophical about quantum > interpretations but would, 99 times out of a hundred, reject out of hand > any discussion of the cosmological philosophy in the Vaisesika Sutras — > despite the fact that that Schrodinger says the idea for superposition came > from the Upanishads. > > > > George Everest (the mountain is named after him) introduced Vedic > teachings on math and logic to George Boole, Augustus de Morgan, and > Charles Babbage; shaping the evolution of Vector Analysis, Boolean Logic, > and a whole lot of math behind computer science. > > > > One could make a very strong argument that most of the Science that > > emerged in England in the 1800-2000, including Newton, was derived > > from Vedic and some Buddhist philosophies. But try to get a Ph.D. in > > any science today with a dissertation proposal that incorporated > > Akasa. [The Vedas posited five elements as the constituents of the > > universe — Aristotle's four, earth, air, fire, water, plus Akasa, > > which is consciousness.] > > > > Swami Vivekananda once explained Vedic philosophical ideas about the > relationship between energy and matter to Nicholas Tesla. Tesla tried for > years to find the equation that Einstein came up with much later. Try to > get a research grant for something like that. > > > > A practical question: how would one go about developing a "science" of > the philosophy of Hermetic Alchemy and its 2500 years of philosophical > investigation. Information, perhaps deep insights, that was tossed out the > window simply because some pseudo-alchemists tried to con people into > thinking that lead could be turned into gold. > > > > Of course the proposal for developing such a science would have to be at > least eligible for grants and gaining tenure, or it is not, in a practicial > (take note Nick) sense. > > > -- > ☣ 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 > > > > ============================================================ > 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 >
============================================================ 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
