Not that long green velvet cape, I hope! There was a strange article I read about Bellow after his death- that he "set up" people in real life to watch their betrayals. I've only read 3 or 4 of his books but feel he is biased against women- probably that Catholic sweetheart from his youth soured his heart! :-)
On Jul 5, 1:47 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > I'll come and have a look Nanook. It's pleasing that some of us care > about what is going on. I feel democracy has passed, like education, > to Doublespeak. I never got on with Bellow's prose but was once > almost in the position of one of his protagonists in Bucharest. I > believe much of the energy needed to put things right has been wasted > by glib assertions that what we have is so much better than communist > dictatorship or tin-pot juntas. I find philosophy in the area arid, > often demonstrating a total inability to think outside of stereotypes > (Kant is the classic) or admit to obvious facts concerning ignorance > and corruption that we have to address. > > On Jul 4, 9:21 pm, TheRealNanook <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Many good points in this discussion so far. Let me jumping back to the > > initial question: "I have never seen science as anything to do with > > democracy - democracy is a form of government I despise...". > > > I think there is a way to find value in democracy, as related to > > science. But it's not in its current form, for sure. First, start > > with #ornamentalmind's first "conception" of democracy. That is, "the > > public has the means to participate in some meaningful way in the > > management of their own affairs and the means of information are open > > and free." This immediately supports #contemplative's view, that > > "ignorant" people get to have a say as well. And, of course, it also > > describes how our current system is a failure. Why? Because, modern > > science is NOT a good example of democratic self-governance. Modern > > science is steered by politics through the control of research > > funding. > > > This brings up a point that #comtemplative presented, "I may be > > ignorant, but I will not be owned! (at least not on paper) :-) " > > This is a very typical "western" display of independence. It is a > > characteristic of the Tea Party, for example. But it has a VERY > > serious flaw! It fails to acknowledge the complexity of modern life. > > In a scantly populated world of farmers, everyone could pretty much do > > what they wanted. But in an overpopulated, resource limited society, > > "blind" independence leads directly to anarchy and violence as people > > struggle for survival. Recognizing this, "to secure ... Rights, > > Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from > > the CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED." So, in order to apply this concept to > > science, we need to address each of the related principles. This could > > be a fun exercise. But, in short, for this discussion, let me just > > list a few changes that I would make. > > > In the initial question, #archytas states, "The only non-arbitrary way > > to defend judgments concerning research agendas in the absence of > > absolute standards is through democratic means..." So, why hasn't > > society searched for some "absolutes"? And if we don't find those, > > then what about some collective preferences? > > > In fact, society has actually done a lot of this. We do so much > > medical research because people have collectively stated they want > > that. I'd include things like space, environment and weather research > > in such a list. What I think is missing is providing an larger > > reaching structure to guide science, and making the "guidance" process > > both transparent and inclusive (ignorant people included : - ) ). > > > BUT! That's the problem we have with our CURRENT form of democracy as > > a whole. It's not transparent because it's not being implemented > > anywhere near close to its ideals. In Greece, the democracy that > > became the initial model only lasted about 30 years, during the rein > > of Pericles. Even during that short period, the philosophers realized > > the theoretical goals had failed. Instead of a "democracy", meaning > > rule by the people, what had actually occurred was an "aristocracy", > > meaning rule by a few rich people who were able to sway the votes of > > the assembly. When new external stresses arose ( i.e. War ), that > > would not permit the time and inefficiency of democracy, the society > > reverted to a monarchy. As the environment collapses around us, our > > civilization will also face such time pressures. Something will > > change, that's for sure. > > > ( Anyone who wants to see a new form of democracy that doesn't have > > most of the current problems, check out my website ( A3society.org ). > > And no, it's not a direct internet voting scheme, or a > > representational scheme like we have, or a mixture of these. A lot of > > basics need to change. )- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
