Keith Hudson wrote: [snip] > But it's not just Christian fundamentalism. There is a wider secular body > of resistance to scientific development -- for example, blanket opposition > to genetically-modified food.[snip] > Keith Hudson > > At 10:17 17/08/02 -0700, you wrote: [snip] > > In answer to Brad's question about what is a modernist, in this > >context, it is users of birth control, a "novelty" item I would certainly > >include in Hudson Economics affecting poverty and the rise of the middle > >class globally. > >Vive la difference. - Karen [snip]
Science is not going to save us so long as it does not assume responsibility for its living practice in social life -- i.e., so long as scientists do not become proactively self-accountable for what they are doing. I think it goes back at least to Galileo's abjuration. We need another "What Went Wrong?" -- only this one about us and not "them". There are persons who have answers: Husserl, Susanne Langer, George Leonard, Robert Musil -- all familiar names from the best seller list, or at least from "college", right? There is a highly thought-provoking book review in today's NYT. "Looking to the Ancients, Pierre Hadot Says Philosophy Should Be a Way of Life" http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/18/books/review/18GEWENT.html Let's call the emperor's new clothes what they are: (1) There is no such thing in our society as liberal arts education. There is, however, grading and testing students on assignments in "subjects" called "humanities", which teaches by example hierarchical social organization (not democracy!), etc. (1a) PhDs need to be what the words mean (healer and teacher who loves wisdom...) and not just a certification of higher technical training. PhDs, like CPAs, should be publicly accountable trustees of our cultural heritage. Indeed, that should be one of their main activities: Publishing/publicizing accountings for everything that is going on in our society. Their job should be to ask: "Why?" and "Whereto?", and come up with answers backed by reasons for the concerned parties to deal with. (2) Postmodernism is a folly perhaps even weirder than tulips or dot.coms. It's time to see if there is a baby anywhere in the dirty bathwater. (2a) It's time to get back on track with the project of modernity as defined by persons like Rabelais and Erasmus, not Descartes and Galileo (their work is one part of the puzzle, but not the most important part, which is the rigorous self-critical reconstruction of social relations, wherein the particular social relations of studying nature, e.g., doing physics, find their place). (3) It's time to recognize that representative democracy is not democracy but rather is democracy of the representatives. Democracy is dialog -- the third person singular and plural are not and cannot be part of dialog and therefore cannot be part of democracy. We may not be able to have democracy, but at least let's stop fooling ourselves: even in its pure form, what we've got would not be a true life for persons. The true life is dialogical sociation: in the learning situation, in the productive situation (AKA work), etc. And this leads back to #1 above.... The fundamentalists may be very wrong about themselves, but they are all too often right in their criticisms of "us". If God is dead, why does The Mother of God (Madonna) flaunt herself on TV? What *could* the fundamentalists do with a form of social life devoted, instead, to the ideals of Husserl's Vienna Lecture? They just might have to respect it. \brad mccormick -- Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works.... (Matt 5:16) Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thes 5:21) <![%THINK;[SGML+APL]]> Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----------------------------------------------------------------- Visit my website ==> http://www.users.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/
