Re: Re: RE: Western Rationality
At 03:47 AM 10/12/2002 +, you wrote: The sheer complexity of modern technologies requires that RD be a team effort; no one individual acting alone can supply the expertise needed to advance the state of the art. If you have a team effort, you need administrators to coordinate efforts, allocate resources, etc. You need administrative/coordinating functions; but these don't necessarily have to become the domain of professional administrators. On the whole, workers are much savvier about how to coordinate/administrate their work than administrators. At least, i find this to be so in the software business. Joanna
RE: Re: RE: Western Rationality
Title: RE: [PEN-L:31287] Re: RE: Western Rationality I wrote: I don't understand why scientific (consistent logical empirical) thinking _requires_ division of labor, bureaucratization, and the rest. Please explain. Carl: The sheer complexity of modern technologies requires that RD be a team effort; no one individual acting alone can supply the expertise needed to advance the state of the art. If you have a team effort, you need administrators to coordinate efforts, allocate resources, etc. team efforts do not require excessive specialization. In fact, successful cooperation requires communication, which is made more difficult to the extent that over-specialization prevails (as when sociologists can't talk to econmists and _vice versa_). It's wrong to assume that bureaucracy is needed simply because it prevails under capitalism and Actually was-Existing Socialism. Scientific teams could be organized in more democratic ways, while the allocation of resources (by governments, etc.) could also be done democratically. The Weberian Iron Cage can be combatted. If we can succeed in the struggle against bureaucratic (top-down) rule, then we can get away from excessive specialization. It would liberate science, helping it to further liberate society. Further, is there any way to convince anyone of the validity of your vision except in a (social) scientific way? Ah! I think enlightenment comes from within, not from any evidence the social sciences can produce. But that's just me channeling R. W. Emerson again. if enlightenment comes only from within, then there's no way to convince anyone else of the validity of your enlightenment. It's like those religious people who say you have to Believe to understand. Well, I don't believe, so I'll just put your religion on the shelf next to astrology. if enlightenment comes not only from within but from empirical research, rationally considered, then we have room for discussion. But the possibility of coming to a consensus about what's true and what's not comes not from the inner enlightenment but from logical and empirical dialogue. Jim Relationships of ownership They whisper in the wings To those condemned to act accordingly And wait for succeeding kings And I try to harmonize with songs The lonesome sparrow sings There are no kings inside the Gates of Eden ... The kingdoms of Experience In the precious wind they rot While paupers change possessions Each one wishing for what the other has got And the princess and the prince Discuss what's real and what is not It doesn't matter inside the Gates of Eden -- Bob Dylan, Gates of Eden.
Re: RE: Re: RE: Western Rationality
RE: [PEN-L:31287] Re: RE: Western Rationality - Original Message - From: Devine, James Relationships of ownership They whisper in the wings To those condemned to act accordingly And wait for succeeding kings And I try to harmonize with songs The lonesome sparrow sings There are no kings inside the Gates of Eden ... The kingdoms of Experience In the precious wind they rot While paupers change possessions Each one wishing for what the other has got And the princess and the prince Discuss what's real and what is not It doesn't matter inside the Gates of Eden -- Bob Dylan, Gates of Eden. Science, like Nature Must also be tamed With a view towards it's Preservation Given the same State of integrity It will surely serve us well... Neil Peart, Natural Science.
Re: RE: Re: RE: Western Rationality
From: Devine, James [EMAIL PROTECTED] Carl: I think enlightenment comes from within, not from any evidence the social sciences can produce. But that's just me channeling R. W. Emerson again. if enlightenment comes only from within, then there's no way to convince anyone else of the validity of your enlightenment. It's like those religious people who say you have to Believe to understand. Well, I don't believe, so I'll just put your religion on the shelf next to astrology. The crowning irony is that belief in science *is* a religion, in effect if not design. Lay people usually aren't competent to decide whether scientists have provided adequate proof for their arguments, and they're almost invariably unable to make reasoned assessments of disputes between scientists. For most people, scientific pronouncements aren't at all illuminating but are as arbitary, opaque and mystifying as priestly decrees of ancient times. Historian Carl Becker made this argument many years ago, as I recall, in his essay The Heavenly City of 18th Century Philosophers -- i.e., that the Enlightenment has not proved very enlightening. Sure, people enjoy all the material benefits that modern technology produces, but they don't have a clue how this technology actually works; it might as well be magic. This remains very much the age of belief, not the age of reason. Carl _ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Western Rationality
From: Devine, James [EMAIL PROTECTED] Joanna writes: A critique of the development of science under capitalism would take much more than an email. Suffice it to say that what we refer to as SCIENCE today is a specific historical form suffering from specific historical deformations. I leave it to your imagination to envision how intelligent, conscious beings might be able to develop alternative forms. there's a difference between science in theory (what intelligent, conscious beings might be able to develop) and science in practice (the degenerated science of a pharmaceutical company, etc.) Again, I believe it's the nature of science itself -- not just the corruptive effects of capitalism -- that so often causes technology to have a destructive, dehumanizing impact on society. The ever increasing specialization of scientific knowledge seems to *require* division of labor, bureaucratization of RD and minimization of individual responsibility for long-term consequences -- an extremely toxic combination. (Apologies for the delay in responding -- lately my pen-l posts seem to be taking the scenic route through the web.) Carl _ Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com
Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Western Rationality
At 05:12 PM 10/10/2002 +, you wrote: Again, I believe it's the nature of science itself -- not just the corruptive effects of capitalism -- that so often causes technology to have a destructive, dehumanizing impact on society. The ever increasing specialization of scientific knowledge seems to *require* division of labor, bureaucratization of RD and minimization of individual responsibility for long-term consequences -- an extremely toxic combination. Right, all I'm saying is that this definition of science as a discipline that slices things into increasingly thin slices, that ignores connections, that ignores context, that cannot conceive how the observer can be included in the observation is mostly an effect of cultural and economic practices, not a cause. I am also saying that science does not have to be limited to the above definition. Joanna
Re: RE: Re: Western Rationality
From: Devine, James [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ian: Indeed, lots of the problems of modernity are the uses to which logic, scientific thinking etc. have been put and those problems are not reducible to the problems created by capitalism. Carl: Yes, I think the basis of many of modern society's worst difficulties is the pernicious objectification of the individual that results from the scientific method, in all its many forms -- especially including the social sciences -- and with all its many appurtenances, including collection and analysis of statistics such as the jobless rate. so we shouldn't care about the number of unemployed individuals, even when this number is measured accurately, because it peniciously objectifies the individual? so if I refer to the high unemployment rate of 1933 in the United States, I am objectifying people (and doing so perniciously)? I think statistics are pernicious because the joys of playing with numbers dull awareness of the great sorrow that *any* quantity of joblessness creates -- one unemployed is a tragedy, a million, statistics, so to speak. When you start pondering numbers in the abstract, the next thing you know you're blathering about unavoidable tradeoffs, NAIRU and what level of unemployment is acceptable. The acceptable level of unemployed is, of course, zero, and any economic system that can't accommodate that has to go. Statistics get in the way of recognizing that truth. I don't know any answer to this problem, since science is so central to modern life, but I do see it as a problem. Scientific study by its nature puts distance between a human observer and human subject, creates a hierarchical relationship and deliberately limits development of empathy. I think this has had a deeply damaging effect on human relations overall. How does scientific study do this by its nature? Because scientific study requires that you rule out all variables not having to do explicitly with the subject being investigated. If you're conducting a focus group, taking a poll or whatever, you have no interest in bonding with the interviewees/participants as full-dimensional people, you simply want to pump them for info on one narrow topic. You ignore their existential reality in order to strip-mine their consciousness for data. Ugly stuff. and what is the alternative to scientific thinking? That's the horror of it all. As Huxley suggested in Brave New World, there doesn't seem to be any choice between the dehumanization of science and reversion to simple savagery. As I said, I don't have any answer to this. Carl _ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
RE: RE: RE: Western Rationality
Title: RE: "Western Rationality" yeah, I've been stupid in many ways. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine -Original Message-From: Eric Nilsson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 9:17 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: [PEN-L:31167] RE: RE: "Western Rationality" Jim wrote, ...eight separate kinds of intelligence, Jim modestly fails to note his own contribution to this issue: there are also multiple kinds of stupidities. Eric /
Re: Re: Re: Western Rationality
At 10:56 AM 10/09/2002 -0400, you wrote: Unfortunately critical thinking toward bourgeois science (and there *is* such a thing has been associated with postmodernist relativism, Not really. There is the work of Feyerabend and a tremendous amount of ground breaking by the phenomenlogists and by Wittgenstein. (that's just off the top of my head...there's lots more perfectly good non-pomo stuff). Joanna
Re: Re: RE: Re: Western Rationality
At 02:41 PM 10/09/2002 +, you wrote: That's the horror of it all. As Huxley suggested in Brave New World, there doesn't seem to be any choice between the dehumanization of science and reversion to simple savagery. As I said, I don't have any answer to this. Oh, that's just silly. We have a historically constructed scientific model -- which is deformed by the bureaucratization of science and by its largely unconscious and unreflective formation -- all of which is to say that our choice encompasses far more than this dehumanized science and savagery. Joanna
Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Western Rationality
From: joanna bujes [EMAIL PROTECTED] At 02:41 PM 10/09/2002 +, you wrote: That's the horror of it all. As Huxley suggested in Brave New World, there doesn't seem to be any choice between the dehumanization of science and reversion to simple savagery. As I said, I don't have any answer to this. Oh, that's just silly. We have a historically constructed scientific model -- which is deformed by the bureaucratization of science and by its largely unconscious and unreflective formation -- all of which is to say that our choice encompasses far more than this dehumanized science and savagery. Joanna I'm all ears. The dilemma Huxley poses has always struck me as the most nightmarish, and compelling, depiction of the human prospect. I'd welcome details on how you see we can get out of this fix. Carl _ Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com
Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Western Rationality
At 06:01 PM 10/09/2002 +, you wrote: From: joanna bujes [EMAIL PROTECTED] At 02:41 PM 10/09/2002 +, you wrote: That's the horror of it all. As Huxley suggested in Brave New World, there doesn't seem to be any choice between the dehumanization of science and reversion to simple savagery. As I said, I don't have any answer to this. Oh, that's just silly. We have a historically constructed scientific model -- which is deformed by the bureaucratization of science and by its largely unconscious and unreflective formation -- all of which is to say that our choice encompasses far more than this dehumanized science and savagery. Joanna I'm all ears. The dilemma Huxley poses has always struck me as the most nightmarish, and compelling, depiction of the human prospect. I'd welcome details on how you see we can get out of this fix. Carl Well, for one thing, I don't accept Huxley's binary. After all, the concentration camps were run very scientifically, but the savagery quotient was high. The same may be said of any sweatshop. It is also the case that the quality of life in many a savage nation is better than ours today. A critique of the development of science under capitalism would take much more than an email. Suffice it to say that what we refer to as SCIENCE today is a specific historical form suffering from specific historical deformations. I leave it to your imagination to envision how intelligent, conscious beings might be able to develop alternative forms. Joanna
RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Western Rationality
Title: RE: [PEN-L:31184] Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Western Rationality Joanna writes: A critique of the development of science under capitalism would take much more than an email. Suffice it to say that what we refer to as SCIENCE today is a specific historical form suffering from specific historical deformations. I leave it to your imagination to envision how intelligent, conscious beings might be able to develop alternative forms. there's a difference between science in theory (what intelligent, conscious beings might be able to develop) and science in practice (the degenerated science of a pharmaceutical company, etc.) Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine -Original Message- From: joanna bujes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 3:41 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:31184] Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Western Rationality At 06:01 PM 10/09/2002 +, you wrote: From: joanna bujes [EMAIL PROTECTED] At 02:41 PM 10/09/2002 +, you wrote: That's the horror of it all. As Huxley suggested in Brave New World, there doesn't seem to be any choice between the dehumanization of science and reversion to simple savagery. As I said, I don't have any answer to this. Oh, that's just silly. We have a historically constructed scientific model -- which is deformed by the bureaucratization of science and by its largely unconscious and unreflective formation -- all of which is to say that our choice encompasses far more than this dehumanized science and savagery. Joanna I'm all ears. The dilemma Huxley poses has always struck me as the most nightmarish, and compelling, depiction of the human prospect. I'd welcome details on how you see we can get out of this fix. Carl Well, for one thing, I don't accept Huxley's binary. After all, the concentration camps were run very scientifically, but the savagery quotient was high. The same may be said of any sweatshop. It is also the case that the quality of life in many a savage nation is better than ours today. A critique of the development of science under capitalism would take much more than an email. Suffice it to say that what we refer to as SCIENCE today is a specific historical form suffering from specific historical deformations. I leave it to your imagination to envision how intelligent, conscious beings might be able to develop alternative forms. Joanna
Re: RE: Re: Western Rationality
RE: [PEN-L:31107] Re: Western Rationality - Original Message - From: Devine, James To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 4:00 PM Subject: [PEN-L:31113] RE: Re: Western Rationality Ian: Indeed, lots of the problems of modernity are the uses to which logic, scientific thinking etc. have been put and those problems are not reducible to the problems created by capitalism. Carl: Yes, I think the basis of many of modern society's worst difficulties is the pernicious objectification of the individual that results from the scientific method, in all its many forms -- especially including the social sciences -- and with all its many appurtenances, including collection and analysis of statistics such as the jobless rate. so we shouldn't care about the number of unemployed individuals, even when this number is measured accurately, because it peniciously objectifies the individual? so if I refer to the high unemployment rate of 1933 in the United States, I am objectifying people (and doing so perniciously)? I don't know any answer to this problem, since science is so central to modern life, but I do see it as a problem. Scientific study by its nature puts distance between a human observer and human subject, creates a hierarchical relationship and deliberately limits development of empathy. I think this has had a deeply damaging effect on human relations overall. How does scientific study do this by its nature? and what is the alternative to scientific thinking? By scientific thinking, I mean thinking involving an attempt to be logical, to back up assertions with references to perceived empirical reality if possible, and trying to avoid leaving major parts of perceived reality out of the story. It involves trying to convince people of the truth of propositions rather than simply making assertions. BTW, to Ian's comment above, I agreed that bureaucratic socialism could be just as much a source of the problems of modernity. To paraphrase Harry Braverman, the USSR imitated the capitalist world, in an effort to survive encirclement and invasion, and to catch up economically. Jim = Sometimes the simplest questions catalyze the most complex thinking we're capable of. How do we conjoin the best science and logic[s] we have in the service of our most mutually enobling and enabling emotions? No platitudes allowed :-) Ian
Re: Re: RE: Re: Western Rationality
Ian Murray wrote: How do we conjoin the best science and logic[s] we have in the service of our most mutually enobling and enabling emotions? No platitudes allowed :-) When the question is a platitude the only correct answer is a platitude: VIII. Social life is essentially _practical_. All mysteries which mislead theory to mysticism find their rational solution in human practice [emphasis added] AND IN THE COMPREHENSION OF THIS PRACTICE. The platitude is that theory/thought can never be more than a _partial_ comprehension of the most advanced practice. Carrol Ian
Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Western Rationality
- Original Message - From: Carrol Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 6:11 PM Subject: [PEN-L:31120] Re: Re: RE: Re: Western Rationality Ian Murray wrote: How do we conjoin the best science and logic[s] we have in the service of our most mutually enobling and enabling emotions? No platitudes allowed :-) When the question is a platitude the only correct answer is a platitude: Like I said in advance, the question was a simple one; the notion that it has a simple answer is ridiculous given that you did not answer it Ian
Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Western Rationality
Ian Murray wrote: Like I said in advance, the question was a simple one; the notion that it has a simple answer is ridiculous given that you did not answer it Yes I did: I said that it is not a legitimate question, and therefore has no answer, simple or complicated. When it comes up as a legitimate question, it would come up in the course of collective practice, and would be answered in the contgext of that practice. What would an ennobling emotion be? And would it exist in the abstract? The same emotion (i.e. the same bodily state) would in different circustances give rise to quite different complexes of thought and feeling, and it would be the feelings/thoughts, not the emotion, that could then, _in that context_, be discussed. Carrol Ian
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Western Rationality
- Original Message - From: Carrol Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yes I did: I said that it is not a legitimate question, and therefore has no answer, simple or complicated. When it comes up as a legitimate question, it would come up in the course of collective practice, and would be answered in the contgext of that practice. Who the hell are you to unilaterally -- no, monopolistically -- decide what is and is not a legitimate question on this list? Is this list not a manifestation of a collective practice or are we, in your readings of post on this list, all solipsistic-monadic deceptive avatars engaged in a multilogue of the willfully misinterpretive? What would an ennobling emotion be? And would it exist in the abstract? The same emotion (i.e. the same bodily state) would in different circustances give rise to quite different complexes of thought and feeling, and it would be the feelings/thoughts, not the emotion, that could then, _in that context_, be discussed. Carrol You used to be a teacher and you don't know what an ennobling emotion is? An ennobling thought -- thinking that ennobles, enables and empowers Others -- you don't know what those are? Gone, Ian
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Western Rationality
Come on, cool it everybody. On Tue, Oct 08, 2002 at 09:46:03PM -0700, Ian Murray wrote: - Original Message - From: Carrol Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yes I did: I said that it is not a legitimate question, and therefore has no answer, simple or complicated. When it comes up as a legitimate question, it would come up in the course of collective practice, and would be answered in the contgext of that practice. Who the hell are you to unilaterally -- no, monopolistically -- decide what is and is not a legitimate question on this list? Is this list not a manifestation of a collective practice or are we, in your readings of post on this list, all solipsistic-monadic deceptive avatars engaged in a multilogue of the willfully misinterpretive? What would an ennobling emotion be? And would it exist in the abstract? The same emotion (i.e. the same bodily state) would in different circustances give rise to quite different complexes of thought and feeling, and it would be the feelings/thoughts, not the emotion, that could then, _in that context_, be discussed. Carrol You used to be a teacher and you don't know what an ennobling emotion is? An ennobling thought -- thinking that ennobles, enables and empowers Others -- you don't know what those are? Gone, Ian -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
