http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodern_philosophy Postmodernism.....Thanks for this post, Archytas... it gave me a glimpse into this "brave new world"....Is this the new "in-thing"?....What became of "positivism"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positivism
I was "taught" phenomenology (Objective Concept / Subjective Reference) and rebelled against it very hard... it would seem to push me away from postmodernism and "back" toward positivism (Subjective Concept / Objective Reference), I suppose... As for Leibniz, Descartes, Spinoza that Stephen mentions, as the Leibniz entry below reminded me... they were from the school called "rationalist"... and pretty much, in the broader framework, I myself call them all three "idealists" (Subjective Concept / Subjective Reference)... "I think therefore I am"....glad to hear it I say sarcastically... now how about the rest of the universe? Seriously , though...for them it seems all thought process (har)....little to no physical experiment.... The names change a bit as times proceed... but the main "epistemological" directions usually seem to be distinguishable... give or take....Pick one and disagree with the rest....Personally I say Screw The Stupid Phenomenologists...... they get everything Ass-Backwards.... HAR http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebniz http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descartes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinoza On Saturday, January 5, 2013 9:27:57 PM UTC-5, archytas wrote: > > This is from the net somewhere (I forget). > Many process philosophers, following the lead of David Ray Griffin, > refer to their own work as “constructive postmodernism” in order to > differentiate it from the deconstruction program of Jacques Derrida, > Jean-François Lyotard, Michel Foucault, and others. The latter > movements seek to dismantle the notions of system, self, God, purpose, > meaning, reality, and truth in order to prevent, among other things, > oppressive totalities and hegemonic narratives that arose in the > Modern period. Constructive postmodernism, on the other hand, seeks > emancipation from the negative aspects of modernity through revision > rather than elimination. Constructive postmodernism seeks to revise > and re-synthesize the insights and positive features of Modernity into > a post-anthropocentric, post-individualistic, post-materialist, post- > nationalist, post-patriarchal, and post-consumerist worldview. For > example, modernity’s worship of scientific achievement, combined with > lingering Aristotelian doctrines of substance and efficient causation > may have led to a mechanistic materialist worldview. Deconstructive > postmodernism would combat this worldview by undermining the efficacy > of science, claiming that all observational statements are actually > about our own culturally-constituted conceptual scheme, not about an > independently real world. Constructive postmodernism seeks instead to > leave natural science intact, because empirical observation itself > produces evidence against mechanism and materialism when it takes in a > sufficiently broad data set (that is, all of human experience, and not > just experience of “physical” objects). > > My own interest in process philosophy came because I can't stand > fundamentalist metaphysics, including attempts to do away with it > altogether (logical positivism), but really can't stand simple grand > narratives foisted on us first as kids and later through culture and > media. I'm as sure as I can be that we have never been modern and > don't live in any 'after-world' of this. Incredulity towards > metanarratives always seems to come in language that supports/creates/ > sustains a myriad of hidden grand-narratives.in a manufactured silence > (perhaps as Skype transmits 'nothing' in packets). Something of > Whitehead's 'experiments are occasions of experience' seems to remain > in Deutsch's constructor theory. In some way I want to reject skill > with words - yet think of recent experiments that have created > 'negative Kelvin' and the negative temperatures being higher than > absolute zero - and one knows this is impossible. Yet I doubt > elaboration in such is anything like the control frauds of most > religion and economics. > > On 4 Jan, 09:05, "Stephen P. King" <stephe...@charter.net> wrote: > > On 1/3/2013 6:35 PM, nominal9 wrote: > > > > > Hello Stephen, > > > I'm sorry to be so late in replying, but with the holidays and also > > > with trying to delve a bit deeper into process philosophy wanted to > > > wait until; I had soemthing with sense to say. > > > > Hi! > > > > Its OK, I have been a bit distracted and busy as well. > > > > > First, let me say at the > > > outset that I've noticed some Process "folks" agree to the distinction > > > between, Physicality and mind but they don't think the physicality is > > > restricted to unmoving or shall we say.... confined substance (I > > > think, I ask if you agree). > > > > I define the physical in a straightforward way: that which can be > > measured and witnessed to exist physically. We can split hairs on this > > later. ;-) > > > > > I have no problem at all with this... as > > > long as the "physicality" / mind distinction is maintaned in some > > > manner, I agree with that. > > > > Are you familiar with Descartes' failed substance dualism ontology? > > It failed for two reasons: it assumed that mind and body are substances > > and it ignored the question: How do minds interact with each other. I > > found a partial solution to those two failures. This discussion leads to > > that proposal. > > > > > That leads me to my second overall > > > observation . That is, even inside Process Philosophy you appear to > > > get those who follow various "bents" that I call Idealist or Realist > > > or Phenomenological or Nominalist. > > > > Yeah, there are always spectra of adherents to/of a point of view, > > seems natural. > > > > > I still have to read Hole argument and Prigonine, so I'm still in the > > > dark but maybe you can expalin to me (scientifically ignorant in large > > > part, as I am) how quantum mechanics makes or allows stuff to > > > vanish?... > > > > The Hole argument shows the implausibility of the idea that there > > is a difference that can be known between the perception that the > > physical world is actually in a singleton state or in a superposition of > > almost identical states states, but from an argument that does not have > > anything to do with quantum physics per se. It has to do with Leibniz > > equivalence. Seehttp:// > www.oliverpooley.org/uploads/7/7/5/9/7759400/handout5.pdffor > > detail orhttp:// > plato.stanford.edu/entries/spacetime-holearg/Leibniz_Equivalen... > > for the more laymanish explanation. > > > > > Let me ask my question this way... is the "disappeared > > > stuff" or component that Quantum Mechanics accounts for but can"t > > > "see"....definitely absent or NOT there at all ? > > > > Slow down a bit, I think I understand your question, but let me be > > sure. The 'disappeared stuff', is it something that was there and now is > > not there"? QM describes quantities that have no physical realizable > > aspect in the ordinary sense of a thing that you might hold in your > > hand, but the world is full of 'stuff' that we cannot perceive directly; > > it does not make that stuff 'invisible' or different, no? > > QM demands that we do not assume a preference of a descriptive mode > > of observation, no "privileged point of view" in the sense of a precise > > description of the state of affairs of our world that can be known by a > > finite physical entity. Relativity does the same thing, but is a > > different way. Both theories together tell us that there is no such > > thing as a privileged observer nor that that observer might perceive if > > it actually existed. This was implications on realism. The first puts > > limits on men, the second puts limits on 'gods' and daemons. ;-) > > > > > or is it > > > "disappeared" because, at our current stage of knowledge we lack the > > > "sense" instrument to be able to show the "disappeared" stuff to us... > > > > Sorta, yeah, but how far before sufficiently advanced technology of > > "state of knowledge" is indistinguishable from magic? There reaches a > > point where our theories themselves are subject to rules... Logic! > > > > > The analogy I make is to the notion of telescopes and especially > > > microscopes... before they were developed, human knowledge had no idea > > > of germs... or atoms... etc.Is there a chance, even way out there in > > > advanced knowledge that the disappeared will appear to those who've > > > made the right sense tools... or genetically evolved them... > > > > OK. But did this change in anyway the 'true nature' of the world? > > > > > HAR....In > > > other words, is the Process part of quantum mechanics (or other > > > topics) just an explanation of theory.. > > > > No, there is process built into it. The unitary evolution of the > > wave function (or mathematical equivalent) is an irreducible process in > > QM. The only thing that corresponds to it in everyday experience is the > > flow of events that one is conscious of, after we abstract away the > > parts that are self-referential. Think of how the world might appear to > > the simplest life form... Could it be conscious at a very simple level? > > It is hard to think of this, we are so habituated to think in > > self-referential terms... > > > > > or is it an established > > > "observable" that will not evewr sustain any categorization as > > > substance (even as force) whatsover... never ever...? > > > > It had better not or one would be peddling a load of mysterianism > > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_mysterianism> or worse! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 28 2012, 1:49 pm, "Stephen P. King" <stephe...@charter.net> > > > wrote: > > >> On 12/28/2012 12:10 PM, nominal9 wrote: > > > > >>> Thanks for your reply, Stephen.... Process Philosophy is something > new > > >>> (as such) to me... so I looked it up in a pretty good Philosophical > > >>> encyclopedia....Does the article below do it ("Process Philosophy") > > >>> justice, more or less? > > >> Hi N9, > > > > >> OK to shorten your handle? Yes, the article @ > http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/process-philosophy/isgreat, hitting > > >> all the notes requires for at least an introduction. > > > > >>>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/process-philosophy/ > > >>> The "founding" notion seems to be that Process is diverse from > > >>> Substance, as a principle of order or organization.... > > >> Right. You might also wish to read the article (by the same > people) > > >> on Substance:http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/substance/ > > > > >>> Very naively on my part.....I ask....and challenge....In seeking to > > >>> supplant "Substance" with Process... what happens to all that the > > >>> "Substance" folks... thinkers and scientists... have discovered and > > >>> learned... about... Physical Matter and .. Thought... ? > > >> What forced me to P.P. is the Hole argument of General > Relativity:http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spacetime-holearg/Itarguesin > > >> powerful ways against the notion of substance as ontologically > > >> primitive. If space-time itself cannot be consistently defined as a > > >> substance and the "stuffness" of my desk vanishes when I examine it > > >> closely enough, as we learn from Quantum Mechanics, what is the point > to > > >> the very idea of a ontologically primitive substance? What does > > >> "substance" do, other than act as a "bearer of properties" that some > how > > >> binds those properties together? Is there a better way of doing > ontology > > >> that allows an epistemology to be constructed that "makes sense" > given > > >> what our amazingly accurate physics theories tell us? > > > > >>> Is all that "stuff" useless and for naught?... I mean, I guess, what > > >>> do the Processists replace each and every bit of that "learned" > stuff > > >>> with? > > >> Processes generates "products": relatively invariant patterns > of > > >> relations. Ever read any Prigogine or any articles on dissipative > > >> structures? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilya_Prigogine > > > > >>> But, I will look more into it... read the abstract you gave and try > to > > >>> respond better to your replies, Stephen... At first blush, looking > at > > >>> the Stanford Encyclopedia article above... it looks to me like > Process > > >>> Philosophy has much in common (as method, at least) with what > > >>> phenomenologists like to do... "Bracketing" > > >> Right. Bracketing is a good way of looking at this as it allows > for > > >> the explicit reference to context, boundary and constraints. One > reason > > >> I like it is that it helps avoid tacit assumptions of omniscience. > > > > >>>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/phenomenology/ > > >>> Personally... I don't much care for phenomenology....just saying... > I > > >>> think it is too "internal" and cerebrally based... doesn't really > look > > >>> at the external "thing" (physical thing especially) under > examination > > >>> for its own explanations of itself (i.e., not "empirical" or > inductive > > >>> [GOOD IMO] but instead abstractly "logical" and deductive[BAD IMO]) > > >> Yes, I agree. > > > > -- > > Onward! > > > > Stephen > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/epistemology/-/wk3trQ7IaX8J. To post to this group, send email to epistemology@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
