I'd say the in stuff is paraconsistent logics (modelling logics from practices that work) and neuroscience. Positivism was never a singular - there are many positivisms. The philosophers' stone in them was to find scientific method applicable to social issues. There was even the happy positivist Enfantin who wanted to include free sex. You'd need a book to describe the positivisms in Marx. In a process philosophy manner we could look at the crap happening around the world and ask whether this is an unwanted by-product of 'thrusting capitalism' or caused by it kind of questions. In some township in South Africa you'll find women pissed-up on a local brew with traces of battery acid hoping to sprog a kid disabled enough to qualify them for high-rate disability allowance, or a whole village drunk in Russia (etc). Our economic 'answers' stress 'growth' yet we could do with a non-planet-burning alternative. A current classic IMHO is the madness of sending kids to expensive universities in droves that will create a 50% graduate population on the promise of bigger salaries to pay off the debt incurred with no consideration of how the graduate jobs will be created (by the magic of thrusting capitalism). Postmodernism, if it wasn't just text-engine waffle, would be looking into the real contradictions of such arguments and what legitimates palpable madness - in my view what is religious in public debate and a control fraud rather than a legitimately democratic institution. I don't know any science that relies on lack of control of outcomes as the magic wand of neo-liberal economics. What I want from philosophy is something that would encourage factual debate in terms of how we invest, reward and control free lives and the planet. Postmodernism is concerned (probably rightly) that such yearnings can become horrible, total solutions like Soviet Paradise or the vile religious sect that became the Nazis. I'm a bit inclined to the view humans aren't much good at fact finding and thinking and we need a 'technology' of such to guide us. Clever philosophy tends to leave us in the hands of philosopher kings, much as clever economics leaves us on the hands of the banksters. Hence I madly think on how we could have a technology of knowledge any fool could drive as we drive cars without any clue on how to build one.
If we were in a lab farting about with a Bose-Einstein condensate to slow down photons, we would exclude a great deal of social dross in doing the science. In economics and much philosophy we exclude a lot too. I'd like a better philosophical description of what we exclude and whether this is legitimate. Process philosophy at least starts with everything in. On Jan 9, 8:44 pm, nominal9 <nomin...@yahoo.com> wrote: > 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/Liebnizhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descarteshttp://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 > > ... > > read more » -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. 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.
