Never been convinced of the presumed basis of ontological/ epistemological/methodological myself Nom. There's some kind of deconstructive point in debunking clown ideologies and control frauds (that lead to stuff like 'churching' women and slashing penises after menstrual contact) - but then what do we do in terms of institutions and building the present and future? How do we cope with history that isn't data? Or the Idol of the theatre? Or research as pisswittering that prevents change? Our financial system produces some brutal facts on who gets the wealth - is there no alternative or is the system a control fraud supported by rationalisation? One can debunk economics (Steve Keen is good) but still find one has missed a key process (e.g. that we mean to deprive others as in beggar thy neighbour to stop them getting strong enough to challenge us). One bit of debunking doing the rounds at the moment is that the definition of money in economics arises from a mistaken thought experiment on barter coming before money and being replaced by it (Adam Smith) - no societies in which this actually occurred/occurs have been found (David Graeber). Debt seems to come first - often in the form of debt peonage or tally sticks. We have almost forgotten that many (religious) terms for freedom mean freedom from debt and the regular debt jubilees in history.I wonder how it is we exclude so many possible angles or processes. This seems fair in the science laboratory but what of unwarranted exclusion in human affairs more generally? And perhaps closer to the modern form of the instruments of torture? Philosophy might be part of such a mechanism of exclusion because ...
On Jan 11, 3:40 pm, nominal9 <nomin...@yahoo.com> wrote: > https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/humanities/2YYdPc... > I thought about these "things" thirty years ago, give or take.... > If the link above works, this will give you a glimpse of my own thoughts as > to an approach to things, both physical and cultural...(scientific and > social) nominal9 thematic dialectic logic....I don't presume to give > "answers"... no philosopher's stone foror from me... just a method of > analysis to differentiate any particular author' s. "assignations" of > "ontological"(fact or fancy), "ethical" (good or bad) and yes, even > "epistemological" ( subjective or objective) predicated values....I remain > true to the author I treat in order to properly "understand" him or her.... > but then... as a reader and as a human being in my own right, I ask... do I > agree with those assignations or not?.... > > My "dialectic method" framework is in "signs"... call them "semiotic" or > whatever... that eventually > "blossom" into language ... of all sorts, depending on the author.... > > Positivism was never a singular / you said ... I say, roughly... it was > (is) true to the basic epistemological tenet of all "scientific method" > should be a mix of "theory" (thought) and "experiment" (empirical > experience) Like I said Concept (subjective)/ Reference (objective). > > Etc. > > Can scientific method be applied to "human affairs"?.....depends.... are we > talking about the physical human (reference)? I'd say yes: the human body > is governed by all physical constraints .....or the thinking (concept) > human? I'd say no:mankind's thinking is all over the place and prone to > willfulness and error and all sorts of other unpredictable vagaries.... > > So what's the problem.... Archytas.....? HAR > > What I try to get across is that "If it is one thing, it is not > another".... the basic concept of "identity" that leads to differentiation > and distinction......and "contradiction and contrariety"..... > > From this, basis, then you go on... whichever way you (whomever) chooses.... > > > > > > > > On Thursday, January 10, 2013 10:43:36 PM UTC-5, archytas wrote: > > > 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/Desc... > > > > 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 > > ... > > 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.
