Hi Krim
Good point. But I think of it more as a democracy than
either a human domain or worse, a Lord's domain.
Why? Well quite clearly things conflict. People conflict,
things come and go, destruction is on a massive scale,
how anything ever gets off the ground floor level is a
wonder. What do you think?
DM
[Krimel]
I would say that just about everything you say above is about preserving
"the myth of control." If we aren't in control perhaps some agency is. If
we
aren't perhaps something else is. Something, a law, a principle or an
entity
must be.
Even religions function to help us either preserve or deal with "the myth
of
control." Buddhist do this by asking us to stop desiring it. Christianity
advises us to submit to a divine will that is indistinguishable from
chance.
The mystics urge us to achieve an emotional integration that feels like
certainty.
I am suggesting that the "myth of control," like my inner Pollyanna,
probably can not be banished but we ought at least to see it for what it
is.
[David M]
I understand your concern with overly romantic attacks on science
and agree we should keep sight of sciences many benefits. But
there is a case against scientism and reductionism and essentialism
to be made against some approachs to science that I think inprove
our understanding of science. I also think there is a non supernatural
case against a type of naturalism, see this for explanation:
http://www.philosophers.co.uk/cafe/phil_may2003.htm
[Krimel]
Your reading suggests while not always welcome are usually interesting
and
eventually appreciated. But here the argument is not naturalism as
opposed
to supernaturalism. I think Ham and dmb and Platt each in their own way
wants to embrace the supernatural while hiding in their respective
closets.
[David M]
I also agree that the aim of MOQ is to recontextualise the modern
world and offer a better context for understanding life, science and
society than SOM does. For me, we need to have an understanding of
how we base our knowledge on lived experience. Lived experience is
our context, this is a context of qualities, values, change, patterns,
and
the potential for change and action. Given experience as it is and
understood (described) in terms like these we can go on to understand
how we can have scientific, personal, emotional, sexual, aesthetic,
social,
political, etc forms of knowledge. Experience is a larger category that
contains 'objects' of knowledge that exceed those that science wants to,
or
can, address.
[Krimel]
I have no problem with any of that with the possible exception of your
move
toward imbuing the inorganic with "experience." Even there I suspect the
disagreement is mainly semantic. I would add that all I think science
does
is formalize the most natural process we have available to us for gaining
knowledge which is to check things out, mess with them and see what
happens.
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
