Re: Evolutionary Science (and the evolution of mankind's
> One would tend to conclude that the human animal is genetically > incapable of dealing effectively with reality. > > Jay Come now, such pessimism won't do, besides it is b.s. People become so dominant species because they are very good at observing, realising patterns, planning and acting on reality. The tendency is to do it in a more and more integrated (cooperative) way. As soon as social organisation and aims become part of this conscious pattern, there is a chance of seeing the future as reality, and then no comforters/substitutes will be necessary. Eva [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Evolutionary Science (and the evolution of mankind's
From: Durant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> One would tend to conclude that the human animal is genetically >> incapable of dealing effectively with reality. > >Come now, such pessimism won't do, besides it is b.s. >People become so dominant species because they >are very good at observing, realising patterns, planning >and acting on reality. The tendency is to do it Come on now Eva, you consistently criticize evolutionary theory while at the same time admitting you wont even make the effort to read a book on the subject. People become the dominant species because they are so good at destroying everything in their path. In order to accomplish this total destruction, people have developed a mind that denies the reality of their actions and makes up excuses (e.g., Marx's dementia served as an excuse for the wholesale slaughter of 30 million(?) by Stalin). In short, the human mind attempts to rationalize it's brutal existence by constantly cooking-up new metaphysical soup (good luck charms, gods, astrology, economic theories, flying saucers, bla bla bla). Here is some of that empiricism (science) I mentioned earlier: - >From The Moral Animal: Evolutionary Psychology and Everyday Life (Vintage Books). Copyright 1994 by Robert Wright. Excerpt from CHAPTER THIRTEEN: DECEPTION AND SELF-DECEPTION "But a famous series of experiments shows (in a quite different context) how oblivious the conscious mind can be to its real motivation, and how busily it sets about justifying the products of that motivation. "The experiments were conducted on 'split-brain' patients -- people who have had the link between left and right hemispheres cut to stop severe epileptic seizures. The surgery has surprisingly little effect on everyday behavior, but under contrived conditions, strange things can happen. If the word 'nut' is flashed before the left eye (which leads to the right hemisphere), but not the right eye (which leads to the left), the subject reports no conscious awareness of the signal; the information never enters the left hemisphere, which in most people controls language and seems to dominate consciousness. Meanwhile, though, the subject's left hand--controlled by the right hemisphere -- will, if allowed to rummage through a box of objects, seize on a nut. The subject reports no awareness of this fact unless allowed to see what his left hand is up to. "When it comes time for the subject to justify his behavior, the left brain passes from professed ignorance into unknowing dishonesty. One example: the command 'Walk' is sent to a man's right brain, and he complies. When asked where he's going, his left brain, not privy to the real reason, comes up with another one: he's going to get a soda, he says, convinced. Another example: a nude image is flashed to the right brain of a woman, who then lets loose an embarrassed laugh. Asked what's so funny, she gives an answer that's less racy than the truth. "Michael Gazzaniga, who conducted some of the split-brain experiments, has said that language is merely the 'press agent' for other parts of the mind; it justifies whatever acts they induce, convincing the world that the actor is a reasonable, rational, upstanding person. It may be that the realm of consciousness itself is in large part such a press agent -- the place where our unconsciously written press releases are infused with the conviction that gives them force. Consciousness cloaks the cold and self-serving logic of the genes in a variety of innocent guises. The Darwinian anthropologist Jerome Barkow has written, 'It is possible to argue that the primary evolutionary function of the self is to be the organ of impression management (rather than, as our folk psychology would have it, a decision-maker).'" Jay
Re: Evolutionary Science (and the evolution of mankind's
Jay Hanson wrote: > [snip] > (e.g., Marx's dementia served as an excuse for > the wholesale slaughter of 30 million(?) by Stalin). [snip] I've heard that Marx suffered from painful *boils*, but never that he was clinically insane. What form did his madness take (DSM code if possible, please)? What is the evidence? \brad mccormick -- Mankind is not the master of all the stuff that exists, but Everyman (woman, child) is a judge of the world. Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED] (914)238-0788 / 27 Poillon Rd, Chappaqua, NY 10514-3403 USA --- Visit my website ==> http://www.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/
Re: Evolutionary Science (and the evolution of mankind's
From: Brad McCormick, Ed.D. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> (e.g., Marx's dementia served as an excuse for >> the wholesale slaughter of 30 million(?) by Stalin). >[snip] > >I've heard that Marx suffered from painful *boils*, >but never that he was clinically insane. What form did >his madness take (DSM code if possible, please)? What >is the evidence? I used the wrong term. As far as I know he was never clinically diagnosed (perhaps he couldn't afford to see a shrink). I should have said intellectual mistakes. Unfortunately, metaphysicians -- then as now -- are prone to this sort of bungled thinking. Hardin showed that, in principle, communism could never work. Marx failed to see this and millions died because of his mistake. Jay --- "Those who deal primarily with ideas may quite unconsciously generalize the plus-sum property of information exchanges into the domains of matter and energy, where it does not apply. It is not uncommon for dealers in information to naively suppose that Karl Marx's "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" (Marx 1972) is a wise rule to follow in exchanges involving matter and energy (as well as information). "I believe I have shown in "The Tragedy of the Commons" (Hardin 1968) that the promiscuous sharing of matter and energy leads to universal ruin." [ http://dieoff.org/page46.htm ]
Re: Evolutionary Science (and the evolution of mankind's
You make it a no-win situation. So we shouldn't try to save a sustainable environment? What if we can, using our "differenc", the ability to see and plan for the future? Our brutal existance can be made extremely enjoyable experience, better to have it than not being born or not living like humans. I'd like to know that I did my best... Blimey, you must be annoyed by all that artificial american optimism around you... European pessimism is more constructive... Eva > No mater what our intention, no matter what fairy tales we > invent to rationalize the brutality of our existence, we are > nothing more than a herd of animals devouring the world around > us as we have for the last 5,000,000 years. > > Jay > - > It was thus becoming apparent that nature must, in the not > far distant future, institute bankruptcy proceedings against > industrial civilization, and perhaps against the standing >crop of human flesh, just as nature had done many times > to other detritus-consuming species following their > exuberant expansion in response to the savings deposits > their ecosystems had accumulated before they got the >opportunity to begin the drawdown... Having become a > species of superdetritovores, mankind was destined > not merely for succession, but for crash. > -- William Catton > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Evolutionary Science (and the evolution of mankind's
Dear Jay: I feel compelled to get into this discussion, a little late, I know but "pressures of real life" you know. -Original Message- From: Jay Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: Durant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: March 5, 1998 10:17 PM Subject: Re: Evolutionary Science (and the evolution of mankind's >From: Brad McCormick, Ed.D. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > As far as I (referring to Marx) know he was never >clinically diagnosed (perhaps he couldn't afford to see >a shrink). Permit me to point out that there was no psychology or psychairitry in the time's that Marx lived, of course he could have went down for a little creative lancing to reduce his fevers of intellectual ferment but that was the state of medicine in most areas he lived in his lifetime I should have said intellectual mistakes. >Unfortunately, metaphysicians -- then as now -- are prone >to this sort of bungled thinking. "bungled thinking" sort of raises my ire a little bit. In my terms, what Marx was trying to do was explain the social conditions of his time and present an alternative. From 150 years later, it may be possible to see errors in his reasoning but to use denigrating phraseology like "bungled" seems to me to prove Brad's point that the "80+ year global campaign of the "White" forces to crush Bolschevism" is still alive and well. > >Hardin showed that, in principle, communism could never >work. Marx failed to see this and millions died because >of his mistake. Well, I've never read "Hardin" but one author does not a binding refutation make. There are always other perspectives. > >Jay >--- > >"Those who deal primarily with ideas may quite unconsciously > generalize the plus-sum property of information exchanges > into the domains of matter and energy, where it does not > apply. It is not uncommon for dealers in information to > naively suppose that Karl Marx's "From each according to his > ability, to each according to his needs" (Marx 1972) is a > wise rule to follow in exchanges involving matter and energy > (as well as information). > >"I believe I have shown in "The Tragedy of the Commons" (Hardin > 1968) that the promiscuous sharing of matter and energy leads > to universal ruin." Reading this latest book by Capra, The Web of Life has given me a slightly different perspective. Dealing with ideas, could be restated as "looking for patterns" and patterns have no "matter and energy" or in Capra terms, matter and energy fall under a class he identifies as structure. You cannot weigh a pattern, or define it's physical shape, though it can be described. To look for all answers at the level of "matter and energy" denies two other important aspects that he calls "pattern and process". In regards to the metaphor of the "commons" which I personally like. Capra might explain that the downfall of the commons was the result of a change of pattern and process that resulted in a change in matter and energy and that to identify the problem at one level is ok, but the solution may very well be found in your much maligned field of "metaphysics". Respectfully, Thomas Lunde > > [ http://dieoff.org/page46.htm ] > >
Re: Evolutionary Science (and the evolution of mankind's
>From: Durant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >You make it a no-win situation. So we If you are asking can "business as usual continue", the answer is NO. It IS a no-win situation. There are NO known exceptions to the laws of thermodynamics. One might as well expect to repeal gravity. Jay
Re: Evolutionary Science (and the evolution of mankind's
Jay Hanson wrote, >There are NO known exceptions to the laws of >thermodynamics. One might as well expect to >repeal gravity. There are, however, plenty of known instances where "laws" are invoked to explain events that they don't cover. Regards, Tom Walker ^^^ Vancouver, B.C. [EMAIL PROTECTED] (604) 669-3286 ^^^ The TimeWork Web: http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/
Re: Evolutionary Science (and the evolution of mankind's
Jay Hanson wrote, >There are NO known exceptions to the laws of >thermodynamics. One might as well expect to >repeal gravity. There are, however, plenty of known instances where "laws" are invoked to explain events that they don't cover. Regards, Tom Walker ^^^ Vancouver, B.C. [EMAIL PROTECTED] (604) 669-3286 ^^^ The TimeWork Web: http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/
Re: Evolutionary Science (and the evolution of mankind's
I lost the link between my question and thermodynamics, sorry, could I have it please? Eva > > >From: Durant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >You make it a no-win situation. So we > > > If you are asking can "business as usual continue", > the answer is NO. It IS a no-win situation. > > There are NO known exceptions to the laws of > thermodynamics. One might as well expect to > repeal gravity. > > Jay > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Evolutionary Science (and the evolution of mankind's
From: Durant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >I lost the link between my question and >thermodynamics, sorry, could I have it please? You asked if it was a "no win" situation. Here is the short version of the laws of thermodynamics: #1. You can't win. #2. You can't break even. #3. You can't even get out of the game. Jay
Re: Evolutionary Science (and the evolution of mankind's
> > Here is the short version of the laws of > thermodynamics: > > #1. You can't win. > > #2. You can't break even. > > #3. You can't even get out of the game. > > Jay > I did some physics in my distant and fuzzy past, but I cannot remember these... Eva
Re: Evolutionary Science (and the evolution of mankind's
> Jay Hanson wrote, > > >There are NO known exceptions to the laws of > >thermodynamics. One might as well expect to > >repeal gravity. > > There are, however, plenty of known instances where "laws" are invoked to > explain events that they don't cover. > > Regards, I read not long ago an essay written by Immanuel Wallerstein, I think it is to be found somewhere at URL http://fbc.binghamton.edu/, in which Immanuel Wallerstein wrote that today research in chaos theory shows that the material World is so unpredictable that the "laws" about entropy might be wrong. At least, it is not possible today to say that those laws of nature are laws anymore. Tor Forde
Re: Evolutionary Science (and the evolution of mankind's
The theorist (Noble Prize winning physical chemist) who has written about the significance of the arrow of time for a recasting of the timeless traditional account of systemic development is Ilya Prigogine. See Prigogine and Stengers 'Order out of Chaos' and a more recent book by Prigogine alone. Wallerstein picks this up in his Gulbenkian report on 'Open the Social Sciences'. Progigine was a member of this committee. To summarize a long and comlex argument, the application of the second law of thermodynamics to biological, ecological and human social systems is rubbish. David Byrne Dept of Sociology and Social Policy University of Durham Elvet Riverside New Elvet Durham DH1 3JT 0191-374-2319 0191-0374-4743 fax
Re: Evolutionary Science (and the evolution of mankind's
D. Byrne wrote: > The theorist (Noble Prize winning physical chemist) who has written about > the significance of the arrow of time for a recasting of the timeless > traditional account of systemic development is Ilya Prigogine. See > Prigogine and Stengers 'Order out of Chaos' and a more recent book by > Prigogine alone. Wallerstein picks this up in his Gulbenkian report on > 'Open the Social Sciences'. Progigine was a member of this committee. To > summarize a long and comlex argument, the application of the second law of > thermodynamics to biological, ecological and human social systems is > rubbish. Exactly what I am saying! Tor Forde
Re: Evolutionary Science (and the evolution of mankind's
From: D S Byrne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >summarize a long and comlex argument, the application of the second law of >thermodynamics to biological, ecological and human social systems is >rubbish. Obviously, you are mistaken David. There are no exceptions to the laws of thermodynamics. They apply everywhere -- even in your backyard. The laws of thermodynamics tell us that you can not burn a barrel of oil twice. It's like gravity -- you can try it at home. Let me know how your experiment turns out. Jay -- Erwin Schrodinger (1945) has described life as a system in steady-state thermodynamic disequilibrium that maintains its constant distance from equilibrium (death) by feeding on low entropy from its environment -- that is, by exchanging high-entropy outputs for low-entropy inputs. The same statement would hold verbatim as a physical description of our economic process. A corollary of this statement is an organism cannot live in a medium of its own waste products. -- Daly and Townsend
Re: Evolutionary Science (and the evolution of mankind's
From: Tor Forde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> 'Open the Social Sciences'. Progigine was a member of this committee. To >> summarize a long and comlex argument, the application of the second law of >> thermodynamics to biological, ecological and human social systems is >> rubbish. > >Exactly what I am saying! Why don't you scientists suggest an experiment that will falsify the laws of thermodynamics? For example, why don't you construct a perpetual motion machine? Better yet, give me the money and I will build one for you! WE'LL BE RICH!!! I citations concerning thermodynamics from about a dozen books at http://dieoff.org/page17.htm Give it a read. Jay
Re: Evolutionary Science (and the evolution of mankind's
>D. Byrne wrote: >>the application of the second law of >> thermodynamics to biological, ecological and human social systems is >> rubbish. Tor Forde wrote: >Exactly what I am saying! Tom Walker agreed: Me three. Jay Hanson wrote (in response to Brad McCormick's quote from Habermas): >This is not science. One is tempted to say that the Habermas quote is *closer* to science than Jay's paraphrase of the laws of thermodynamics (1. you can't win, etc.). Instead, I'll agree that philosophy of science is not science. It is, however, a condition without which science could not exist. Language is another such condition. Language is not science. One cannot, however, "do" science and repudiate language. It's also clear to me that there is no point arguing with someone who simply repeats a particular "fact" or "law" as the conclusive answer to every conceivable question. Science is science. Fundamentalism is fundamentalism. Regards, Tom Walker ^^^ Vancouver, B.C. [EMAIL PROTECTED] (604) 669-3286 ^^^ The TimeWork Web: http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/
Re: Evolutionary Science (and the evolution of mankind's
From: Tom Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >It's also clear to me that there is no point arguing with someone who simply >repeats a particular "fact" or "law" as the conclusive answer to every >conceivable question. Science is science. Fundamentalism is fundamentalism. As far as I know, you three have been so busy denying reality, that you haven't asked any questions. Did I miss something? Jay
Re: Evolutionary Science (and the evolution of mankind's
As and when a barrel of oil is a complex system then the analogy might hold, but of course it isn't. I'm not going to attempt to summarize Prigogine's ideas in a short message but take it up with him - he can certainly punch his weight in intellectual terms and that is Nobel Prize winner for this stuff. David Byrne Dept of Sociology and Social Policy University of Durham Elvet Riverside New Elvet Durham DH1 3JT 0191-374-2319 0191-0374-4743 fax
(Fwd) Re: Evolutionary Science (and the evolution of mankind's
and another one >> Obviously, you are mistaken David. There are no exceptions to the laws >> of thermodynamics. They apply everywhere -- even in your backyard. >> >> The laws of thermodynamics tell us that you can not burn a barrel of oil >> twice. It's like gravity -- you can try it at home. >> >> Let me know how your experiment turns out. >> Jay Jay is correct about the second law of thermodynamics applying to all natural systems (but not human social ones). The biosphere of the earth certainly obeys the second law. The second law essentially states that in a closed system, entropy (the degree of disorder) will tend to increase or at best remain constant. However, within a closed system, parts of the system may experience a decrease in entropy at the expense of a larger increase elsewhere in the system. The earth by itself is an open system. The earth and Sun together comprise a closed system. Life on earth, consisting of complex, low entropy organisms, developed from a state of higher entropy. But it did so at the expense of a massive increase in entropy in the Sun. For the earth and Sun taken together as a closed system, there was an overall massive increase in entropy. >> >> -- >> Erwin Schrodinger (1945) has described life as a system in >> steady-state thermodynamic disequilibrium that maintains its >> constant distance from equilibrium (death) by feeding on >>low entropy from its environment -- that is, by exchanging >> high-entropy outputs for low-entropy inputs. The same >> statement would hold verbatim as a physical description >> of our economic process. A corollary of this statement >>is an organism cannot live in a medium of its own >> waste products. >> -- Daly and Townsend >> It's nearly always inappropriate to apply scientific theories to human social constructs. Ron Ebert [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** The brightest flashes in the world of thought are incomplete until they have been proved to have their counterparts in the world of fact. -John Tyndall [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Evolutionary Science (and the evolution of mankind's self-knowledge)
Jay Hanson wrote: > > From: Lawrence M. Hanser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >Do I detect some sarcasm here? Creation and evolution are not necessarily > > Yes, you detected a great deal of sarcasm. I believe nearly all Americans > prefer metaphysics to science. It doesn't make any difference whether it's > the Mystic Hotline, alien abductions, utility theory, or the Second Coming. > > I would give a band of chimps a better shot at understanding the world they > live in. > > Jay I agree that nearly all Anericans prefer metaphysics to science --> and, if one includes "naive realism" as a form of (often unwitting) metaphysics, then that probably includes most scientists, too! What we need, in my resigned but undaunted opinion, is neither "metaphysics" (especially the kind that, in Borders Bookstore, is *across the aisle* from the philosopy section!), nor "science" (naive empiricism), but a genuinely reflective understanding of what we are doing, which, as I keep saying, may begin with Heraclitus, but certainly is pretty well developed in Kant, and then Husserl, et al. "Transcendental intersubjectivity is intersubjectivity" (Husserl), what we *are* is conversation (Gadamer), etc. To repeat myself: We have hever yet been really modern -- or scientific (or democratic, either) \brad mccormick -- Mankind is not the master of all the stuff that exists, but Everyman (woman, child) is a judge of the world. Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED] (914)238-0788 / 27 Poillon Rd, Chappaqua, NY 10514-3403 USA --- Visit my website ==> http://www.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/
Re: Evolutionary Science (and the evolution of mankind's self-knowledge)
From: Brad McCormick, Ed.D. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To repeat myself: We have hever yet been really modern -- or scientific >(or democratic, either) One would tend to conclude that the human animal is genetically incapable of dealing effectively with reality. Jay "When we run over libraries, persuaded of these principles, what havoc must we make? If we take in hand any volume of school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, 'Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity and number?' No. 'Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence?' No. Commit it then to the flames: For it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion." -- Hume
Re: Evolutionary Science (and the evolution of mankind's self-knowledge)
Jay Hanson wrote: > > From: Brad McCormick, Ed.D. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >> (e.g., Marx's dementia served as an excuse for > >> the wholesale slaughter of 30 million(?) by Stalin). > >[snip] > > > >I've heard that Marx suffered from painful *boils*, > >but never that he was clinically insane. What form did > >his madness take (DSM code if possible, please)? What > >is the evidence? > > I used the wrong term. As far as I know he was never > clinically diagnosed (perhaps he couldn't afford to see > a shrink). I should have said intellectual mistakes. > Unfortunately, metaphysicians -- then as now -- are prone > to this sort of bungled thinking. > > Hardin showed that, in principle, communism could never > work. Marx failed to see this and millions died because > of his mistake. [snip] > "I believe I have shown in "The Tragedy of the Commons" (Hardin > 1968) that the promiscuous sharing of matter and energy leads > to universal ruin." I read Hardin's "The Tragedy of the Comons" many years ago, and I do not seem to recall it having anything to do with Communism (but then I was young then, and perhaps I missed a kind of veiled message which it may not have been safe to state openly in America at the time...) I thought the article had to do with the need for wise political coordination of social action to preserve mankind's common heritage against the threat from unfettered individual competition (laissez faire). Back to Marx. What *is* communism? As I understand it, Marx never had much to say about this, because it was something which would *emerge* through the not-knowable-in-advance advance of history. Dialectical thinking contrasts with the metapysics of naive realism, which posits that nothing genuinely *new* (i.e., categorially/"universally" transfigurative) can happen -- only "new" (i.e., previously uninstantiated) permutations of the (metaphysically and noetically) pregiven elements. This, of course, is myopic, since, for the educated ancients, there were 4 elements, and in no way was their Lifeworld or Cosmos (or academic establishment) comprised of the kind of Mendeleevean "elements", in Laplacean (or -- what amounts to the same thing for human existence -- quantum) interaction, which most persons now take on faith comprise the world. Is Communism self-contradictory? I haven't seen the arguments for that, and, as said, there is a problem with whether we have much of an idea what communism (other than primitive, e.g., Christian, kinds...) might be -- even today, in the aftermath of the finally triumphant (to my mind, a harvest of shame...) 80+ year global campaign of the "White" forces to crush Bolschevism (and anything else that looks like worker uppidyness, e.g., Joe Hill and the Wobblies...), when, still, there has been little opportunity for that flower (or, perhaps it will turn out to be a weed -- ref.: Elsa Morante's _History a Novel_) to evolve. But I have seen some seemingly cogent arguments (not just Marx's) why *Capitalism* is both self-contradictory and also inimical to democracy. Even prima facie, it is obvious that every entrepreneur's aspiration is not to compete, but to destroy all the competition and achieve monopoly position: "What's mine is mine and what's yours is up for grabs." As far as the metaphysics of naive realism is concerned, I append a footnote from something I wrote almost 20 years ago about the process of discovery, in technical (and, also, scientific, or indeed, any area of human...) praxis. It is a footnote to a sentence in which I talk about how a new idea comes to us "when it wants to" and not as any manageable (I mean that in the strong sense that a manager could make a rational business plan for accomplishing the thing) effect of our willful endeavor: "...when it wants to" ---This is a potentially misleading image, which recurs, as a leitmotiv, throughout this paper. I do not mean to attribute an anthropomorphic faculty of will to 'the solution to a puzzle' (or to what I will speak of, generally, as "the new"). It would be more correct to say only: "The solution comes when it comes." I retain this image of 'will' in regard to something that probably does not have a will, intentionally, though with misgivings, to highlight how dependent human willing (which may take national, ecclesiastical or tribal, as easily as 'secular' and 'personal' forms) is: Even when it commands nuclear fusion and computerized dossiers, human willing is 'trite', not just because it is empirically weak (it offers no prospect of raising the dead...), but also because all it can do is wear away (at-trite) what it already has and is entirely incapable of bringing forth anything genuinely new. As David Hume discovered when he looked into the mind and found there only faculties for producing relations of association, resemblance and contiguity, human willing can only mix and match what it already possesses (do 'more of the same'). But, to use Jacob
Re: Evolutionary Science (and the evolution of mankind's self-knowledge)
From: Brad McCormick, Ed.D. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >already possesses (do 'more of the same'). But, to use Jacob >Bronowski's word, human existence also ascends, and ascent >is vertical (something decidedly better, 'a cut above'), not >horizontal (more of the same). None of the things that make "ascends"? Human existence can not "ascend". None of this stuff means anything to me. It's just a bunch of words strung together. It sounds good, but it doesn't mean anything. A human can't ascend any more than a cow can ascend. We are like a herd of cattle feeding on -- and utterly destroying -- the world around us. We make soothing sounds and tell ourselves fairy tales in order to live with the brutality of our existence. Billions of years of solar energy inputs created low-entropy matter here on Earth. Low-entropy matter is the prerequisite for human life. The human evolutionary line has existed for about 5,000,000 years, biologically modern humans appeared sometime in the last 120,000 years, and behaviorally modern humans probably appeared sometime between 120,000 and 40,000 years ago. Over millions of years, the human animal evolved to "fit" their billions-of-years-old environment. Major changes in our natural environment make it unsuitable for us -- perhaps we will no longer "fit". No mater what our intention, no matter what fairy tales we invent to rationalize the brutality of our existence, we are nothing more than a herd of animals devouring the world around us as we have for the last 5,000,000 years. Jay - It was thus becoming apparent that nature must, in the not far distant future, institute bankruptcy proceedings against industrial civilization, and perhaps against the standing crop of human flesh, just as nature had done many times to other detritus-consuming species following their exuberant expansion in response to the savings deposits their ecosystems had accumulated before they got the opportunity to begin the drawdown... Having become a species of superdetritovores, mankind was destined not merely for succession, but for crash. -- William Catton
Re: Evolutionary Science (and the evolution of mankind's self-understanding)
Thomas Lunde wrote: > > Dear Jay: > > I feel compelled to get into this discussion, a little late, I know but > "pressures of real life" you know. > > -Original Message- > From: Jay Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: Durant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: March 5, 1998 10:17 PM > Subject: Re: Evolutionary Science (and the evolution of mankind's > > >From: Brad McCormick, Ed.D. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > As far as I (referring to Marx) know he was never > >clinically diagnosed (perhaps he couldn't afford to see > >a shrink). > > Permit me to point out that there was no psychology or psychairitry in the > time's that Marx lived, of course he could have went down for a little > creative lancing to reduce his fevers of intellectual ferment but that was > the state of medicine in most areas he lived in his lifetime I don't have time at the moment to round up my documentation, but psychiatry was "doing quite well, thank you", at least in France, and the United States (e.g., the Quakers) in the 19th Century. If Hitler came close (as a remarkable recent New York Times article argued) to becoming a patient of Freud, one of Freud's teachers "could" have treated Karl Marx. Marx died 1883. Breuer's treatment of Anna O. ended "early in June 1882, and the following November" Freud learned of it from Breuer (Vol II, p. xi of the Standard Edition of Freud's Works). Somebody can date Pierre Janet's ground-breaking discoveries which were published in 1889 but for which I seem to think the actual clinical work preceded Anna O.'s treatment by Breuer. I think I'd start my search with (amazon.com citation follows:): > The Discovery of the Unconscious > by Henri F. Ellenberger > List: $42.00 > Our Price: $42.00 > Availability: This title usually ships within 24 > hours. > Paperback, 976 pages > Published by Basic Books (Short Disc) > Publication date: September 1, 1981 > Dimensions (in inches): 9.20 x 6.10 x 1.75 > ISBN: 0465016731 > > I should have said intellectual mistakes. > >Unfortunately, metaphysicians -- then as now -- are prone > >to this sort of bungled thinking. > > "bungled thinking" sort of raises my ire a little bit. In my terms, what > Marx was trying to do was explain the social conditions of his time and > present an alternative. From 150 years later, it may be possible to see > errors in his reasoning but to use denigrating phraseology like "bungled" > seems to me to prove Brad's point that the "80+ year global campaign of the > "White" forces to crush Bolschevism" is still alive and well. > > > >Hardin showed that, in principle, communism could never > >work. Marx failed to see this and millions died because > >of his mistake. > > Well, I've never read "Hardin" but one author does not a binding refutation > make. There are always other perspectives. Hardin's paper *is* a classic -- my contention is that it does not argue against humanistic socialism and it does not argue for free-fall capitalism. [snip] "Yours in the details (where I fully expect to find The Truth of The Whole)" \brad mccormick -- Mankind is not the master of all the stuff that exists, but Everyman (woman, child) is a judge of the world. Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED] (914)238-0788 / 27 Poillon Rd, Chappaqua, NY 10514-3403 USA --- Visit my website ==> http://www.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/
Re: Evolutionary Science (and the evolution of mankind's self-understanding)
Brad McCormick wrote: I don't have time at the moment to round up my documentation, but psychiatry was "doing quite well, thank you", at least in France, and the United States (e.g., the Quakers) in the 19th Century. If Hitler came close (as a remarkable recent New York Times article argued) to becoming a patient of Freud, one of Freud's teachers "could" have treated Karl Marx. Marx died 1883. Breuer's treatment of Anna O. ended "early in June 1882, and the following November" Freud learned of it Well, according to my memory, not very reliable at the best of times, Marx was publishing his Manifesto around 1840, he was poor as a church mouse in a poor parish and if Engel's had not given him a few bucks now and then could have starved to death. I know Freud was supposed to be the father of psychoanalysis, but to the best of my knowledge, this is considered different from psychiatry. He was crazy in my opinion in the manner of obsession, any sane person would have went to work in the spinning mills and died an early death. Of course, if you works get quoted enough you get called a genius. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde PS I realize I should never trade references with you, it's like a frigate attacking an aircraft carrier, maybe I need a little "psychiatry".
Re: (Fwd) Re: Evolutionary Science (and the evolution of mankind's
Durant wrote: > > and another one > > >> Obviously, you are mistaken David. There are no exceptions to the laws > >> of thermodynamics. They apply everywhere -- even in your backyard. > >> > >> The laws of thermodynamics tell us that you can not burn a barrel of oil > >> twice. It's like gravity -- you can try it at home. [snip] OK. But that barrel of crude oil can be burned with the sole effect of keeping up the price of oil, or it can be refined and fractionated to provide a vast array of useful work. One telos of technological advance is asymptotically to approach the point where we can accomplish everything no resource input. I have no idea whether or not computer power can overcome entropy (this is a non-trivial "theoretical" issue!). I do know that, if I am in a sealed capsule *(e.g., "Das Boot"...), and I have to stay there 8 hours to get up to the open air again, it is far less relevant whether all work generates heat, than whether I can make my air supply last for 8 hours and 1 second. The former is perhaps an "academic exercise" in the manipulation of the values of continuous functions. The latter is a more consequential "step function". As far as gravity is concerned, Godzilla and a Tai-chi master both obey the law of gravity -- but with somewhat different "resource consumption to effect" ratios \brad mccormick -- Mankind is not the master of all the stuff that exists, but Everyman (woman, child) is a judge of the world. Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED] (914)238-0788 / 27 Poillon Rd, Chappaqua, NY 10514-3403 USA --- Visit my website ==> http://www.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/
