Probably my European thinkingcluster is not tuned at the same wavelenght as The American or British.
Its merely a question about the use of reductionisme spooking around in my thinking, allow me to explain. I was reading one of R Dawkins books , the past week, and 'iv noticed that he works as a reductionist, but is not very carefull in the use of the reductionism-branch. At a certain page , Dawkins is explaining with the use of an example how all DNA-based life, with the exeption of two minor branches, is derived from 1 common dna delivering ancestor. But he doesn't call the exeption by its name, calles it of no importance because it is not enough to undermine the generalisation. In my opinion , this is the use of selective reductionism, to serve a purpose, Dawkins purpose to sell his product ,but it does not serve science , or truth, not to explain the exeptions. very strange for a heavyweight like Dawkins.This brought me to the term , selective reductionism.; the intrinsic danger is to violate realisme, or hyperrealism, the intrinsic danger is nesting a doctrine within realism. Well, panpsychism as i understand it , i call it pandora's box , because it contains all fields of philosophy, including the spiritual, as pandora's box did. I was referring to one of your earlier posting to bridge the eastern philosophy, buddism, western philosophy ,to make the field congruent, developing the context.I think i was thinking about that. It is a strong belief here, in these part of the world , that spiritualism was to be found in pandora's box. And here , in my thinking i am conflicting with the European realism/reductionism approach, here it is all about narrowing the field down to subject/object metaphysika, as in derived from reductionism, and there is no place for spiritualism. So , concluding , not preventing panpsychism, but contaminating it with selective reductionism, to scale it down to s/o I think this can be a danger, if used improperly. Hope this is a bit more clear ,. Greetzz, Adrie. 2010/8/30 david buchanan <[email protected]> > > > Adrie said: > Well, Dave, as i was reading the line of thinking in the postings; the > word selective reductionism popped up in my head. Not that it is of any > importance. But selective reductionism used incorrectly or improperly is a > potential widget capable of preventing the opening of pandora's box called > panpsychism, opening the field, the terra incognita--;the road ahaed of us. > I think the message is , -expanding the field. > > dmb says: > I don't understand what you mean. What is "selective reductionism"? How > does it prevent panpsychism? What makes you say panpsychism is a pandora's > box? > > > > > > > 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/md/archives.html > -- parser 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/md/archives.html
