QA: '... you can't > assert "Compassion, Democracy, Ethics, and Scientific method. These are > prerequisites for the survival of civilisation."... if you really believe > that History has not finished yet.
MP: The fact of me making the assertion is logical; what I assert is not a closed prescription of thought and action, quite the opposite in fact. <NB: 'prerequisites' are necessary but not necessarily sufficient> This is not some academic argument or computer simulation in which the parameters can be changed and the program re-run. True history is 'once-off'. We in our culture and history are like fish in water but whereas the fish cannot change their water [they don't even see it] we who are capable of reflexive awareness and contemplation can, through work on ourselves and on communication media, change the 'world' as it appears to others and therefore potentially we can change our world for the better. I am not referring to some kind of Trotskyist 'end of history', I am referring to the real possibility of anthropogenic terminal catastrophe. CA: ' > I don't think you're wrong nor you're right... least to say that I can't > truly > say our democratic system is the top of the art political system... It can't > be or the top of the art has serious flaws. I can't point to you what better > system could be but I can easily point what flaws there are.' MP: But here we agree! This is an essential feature that democracy shares with science: its eternal incompleteness. [As folk are wont to say about the World according to Bill Gates: 'It's not a fault, it's a feature!' :-] What we can say is that democracy in most of its evolving forms is much better than all the alternatives. QA: '... Science has grown without democracy, ethics > too, compassion too, moral basis too.' MP: Don't be so quick to dismiss the world-transforming power of science. 'Speciation' is what is happening to homo sapiens right now, but we want ALL members of our species to participate. Also, the seeds of science appeared in many parts of the world through history since, well 'the Bronze Age' I think, but germination required the printing presses and alphabet based writing systems of Europe to grow into real existence. My guess is the difficulties of learning to read and write Chinese [and I am well familiar with the difficulties] is what prevented the earlier growth of scientific method in East Asia where block printing had been known for centuries before the idea came to Europe. But the growth of good science needs real democracy, just like real democracy needs the profound cultural support of knowledge of scientific method. Remember, Athenian 'democracy' required a totally disenfranchised slave class to create the surplus value consumed by the warrior elite as members of the latter contested for status and power amongst their own class. <in passing: 'history is one-off' is why Karl Popper excluded most aspects of history, 'sociology', psychology, etc, from his definition of science, but that is another story> Regards Mark Peaty CDES [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.arach.net.au/~mpeaty/ Quentin Anciaux wrote: > On Friday 22 June 2007 20:38:50 Mark Peaty wrote: >> History has not finished yet, and I am proposing that we try to >> ensure that it doesn't. > > Agreed, but it was not what I meant to say... it is the opposite... you can't > assert "Compassion, Democracy, Ethics, and Scientific method. These are > prerequisites for the survival of civilisation."... if you really believe > that History has not finished yet. > >> If you truly think I am wrong in my assertion, then you have a >> moral duty to show me - and the rest of the world - on the basis >> of clear and unambiguous empirical evidence where and how I am >> wrong. > > I don't think you're wrong nor you're right... least to say that I can't > truly > say our democratic system is the top of the art political system... It can't > be or the top of the art has serious flaws. I can't point to you what better > system could be but I can easily point what flaws there are. > >> Without such evidence you have only your opinion, which >> of course is safe for you in a democracy, and that you have an >> opinion can be important, especially if it is well thought out. >> "Agreeing to disagree" is an honourable stance when accompanied >> by respect. > > You do not have evidence too... Science has grown without democracy, ethics > too, compassion too, moral basis too. Maybe I missed your demonstration of > your assertion... but what you're saying are not "all time certainty". > > Regards, > Quentin > << snip>> >> >> Hmm, I went on more than I intended here, but the issue is not >> trivial, and it is not going to go away. >> >> Regards >> >> Mark Peaty CDES >> >> >> >> Quentin Anciaux wrote: >>> This is completely arbitrary and history does not show this. >>> >>> Quentin >>> >>> 2007/6/22, Mark Peaty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>>> CDES = Compassion, Democracy, Ethics, and Scientific method >>>> >>>> These are prerequisites for the survival of civilisation. >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> >>>> Mark Peaty CDES >>>> >>>> >>>> David Nyman wrote: >>>>> On Jun 21, 8:03 pm, Mark Peaty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <<snipped>> >>>>> PS - Mark, what is CDES? --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
