At 08:01 PM 10/13/2002 -0700, you wrote:
To put it differently, is there a unique order relation that
partially orders the universal set?
Yes. They call it Nature. And, as Aristotle said, Nature IS order.
The guiding question in science has been How do you read/interpret that
order? The answer
From: Sabri Oncu [EMAIL PROTECTED]
... (western) rationality is that human behaviour,
possibly emerged in Europe some centuries ago, which attemps to
impose a complete order on an infinite dimensional set, that is,
a continuum, that I call life. Life as a continuum can at best be
a partially
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,
RE: [PEN-L:31300] Western Rationality
- Original Message -
From: Devine, James
Lewontin and Levins (in their DIALECTICAL BIOLOGIST) argue against the
Enlightenment version of science. They see the world as heterogeneous,
involving a large number of parts that are interconnected as part
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
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
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
From: Devine, James [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Carl writes:
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
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
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
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
I start by proclaiming that science does not
equal rationalism. In fact, they can be quite
exclusive of each other. Spend one day at a
university dominated by a college of science, and
you'll have to agree with me.
CJ
Unfortunately critical thinking toward bourgeois science (and there *is*
From: Devine, James [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The issue of attaining zero unemployment is not about measuring it. Rather,
it's about figuring out a better way to organize society that doesn't
organically involve unemployment (open or hidden).
Hear, hear, Jim. Yes, let's keep our eyes on the prize!
Title: 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
/
ct: [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
/
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
Even more generally, the
single number fallacy fits with the general capitalist philosophy that
the value of everything should be measured by its contribution to
profits.
Yup.
Joanna
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
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
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
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
At 10:35 PM 10/08/2002 +, you wrote:
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.
Title: RE: [PEN-L:31107] 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
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
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
- 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
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
- 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
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
29 matches
Mail list logo
