At 08:01 PM 10/13/2002 -0700, you wrote:
>To put it differently, is there a unique order relation that
>partially orders the universal set?
Yes. They call it Nature. And, as Aristotle said, "Nature IS order."
The guiding question in science has been "How do you read/interpret that
order?" The a
RE: [PEN-L:31300] "Western Rationality"
- Original Message -
From: Devine, James
Lewontin and Levins (in their DIALECTICAL BIOLOGIST) argue against the
Enlightenment version of science. They see the world as heterogeneous,
involving a large number of parts that are interconnected as part
At 03:47 AM 10/12/2002 +, you wrote:
>The sheer complexity of modern technologies requires that R&D be a team
>effort; no one individual acting alone can supply the expertise needed to
>advance the state of the art. If you have a team effort, you need
>administrators to coordinate efforts,
>From: Sabri Oncu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>... (western) rationality is that human behaviour,
>possibly emerged in Europe some centuries ago, which attemps to
>impose a complete order on an infinite dimensional set, that is,
>a continuum, that I call life. Life as a continuum can at best be
>a parti
From: "Devine, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Carl:
I think enlightenment comes from within, not from any evidence the
social sciences can produce. But that's just me channeling R. W.
Emerson again.<
if enlightenment comes only from within, then there's no way to convince
anyone else of the validity
RE: [PEN-L:31287] Re: RE: "Western Rationality"
- Original Message -
From: Devine, James
"Relationships of ownership
They whisper in the wings
To those condemned to act accordingly
And wait for succeeding kings
And I try to harmonize with songs
The lonesome sparr
Title: RE: [PEN-L:31287] Re: RE: "Western Rationality"
I wrote: >>I don't understand why scientific (consistent logical & empirical) thinking _requires_ "division of labor," bureaucratization, and the rest. Please explain.<<
Carl: >The sheer compl
From: "Devine, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Carl writes:
> Again, I believe it's the nature of science itself -- not just the
> corruptive effects of capitalism -- that so often causes technology to
have
> a destructive, dehumanizing impact on society. The ever increasing
> specialization of scient
At 05:12 PM 10/10/2002 +, you wrote:
>Again, I believe it's the nature of science itself -- not just the
>corruptive effects of capitalism -- that so often causes technology to
>have a destructive, dehumanizing impact on society. The ever increasing
>specialization of scientific knowledge
>From: "Devine, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>Joanna writes:
> >A critique of the development of science under capitalism would take much
>more than an email. Suffice it to say that what we refer to as SCIENCE
>today is a specific historical form suffering from specific historical
>deformations. I
Title: RE: [PEN-L:31184] Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: "Western Rationality"
Joanna writes:
>A critique of the development of science under capitalism would take much
more than an email. Suffice it to say that what we refer to as SCIENCE
today is a specific historical form suffering
At 06:01 PM 10/09/2002 +, you wrote:
>>From: joanna bujes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>>At 02:41 PM 10/09/2002 +, you wrote:
>>>That's the horror of it all. As Huxley suggested in Brave New World,
>>>there doesn't seem to be any choice between the dehumanization of
>>>science and reversion t
>From: joanna bujes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>At 02:41 PM 10/09/2002 +, you wrote:
>>That's the horror of it all. As Huxley suggested in Brave New World,
>>there doesn't seem to be any choice between the dehumanization of science
>>and reversion to simple savagery. As I said, I don't have any
At 02:41 PM 10/09/2002 +, you wrote:
>That's the horror of it all. As Huxley suggested in Brave New World,
>there doesn't seem to be any choice between the dehumanization of science
>and reversion to simple savagery. As I said, I don't have any answer to this.
Oh, that's just silly. We ha
Even more generally, the
single number fallacy fits with the general capitalist philosophy that
the value of everything should be measured by its contribution to
profits.
Yup.
Joanna
At 10:56 AM 10/09/2002 -0400, you wrote:
>Unfortunately critical thinking toward bourgeois science (and there *is*
>such a thing has been associated with postmodernist relativism,
Not really. There is the work of Feyerabend and a tremendous amount of
ground breaking by the phenomenlogists and b
ECTED]Subject: [PEN-L:31167]
RE: RE: "Western Rationality"
Jim
wrote,
> ... eight separate kinds of
intelligence,
Jim modestly fails to note his own contribution to
this issue: there are also multiple kinds of
stupidities.
Eric
/
Title: RE: "Western Rationality"
Jim
wrote,
> ... eight separate kinds of
intelligence,
Jim modestly fails to note his own contribution to this
issue: there are also multiple kinds of
stupidities.
Eric
/
>From: "Devine, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>The issue of attaining zero unemployment is not about measuring it. Rather,
>it's about figuring out a better way to organize society that doesn't
>organically involve unemployment (open or hidden).
Hear, hear, Jim. Yes, let's keep our eyes on the pr
>I start by proclaiming that science does not
>equal rationalism. In fact, they can be quite
>exclusive of each other. Spend one day at a
>university dominated by a college of science, and
>you'll have to agree with me.
>
>CJ
Unfortunately critical thinking toward bourgeois science (and there *i
>From: "Devine, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > >Ian:
> > >Indeed, lots of the problems of modernity are the uses
> > >to which logic, scientific thinking etc. have been put and those
> > >problems are not reducible to the problems created by capitalism.
>
>Carl:
> > Yes, I think the basis of man
Come on, cool it everybody.
On Tue, Oct 08, 2002 at 09:46:03PM -0700, Ian Murray wrote:
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Carrol Cox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> >
> > Yes I did: I said that it is not a legitimate question, and therefore
> > has no answer, simple or complicated. When it com
- Original Message -
From: "Carrol Cox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Yes I did: I said that it is not a legitimate question, and therefore
> has no answer, simple or complicated. When it comes up as a legitimate
> question, it would come up in the course of collective practice, and
> would be
Ian Murray wrote:
>
>
>
> Like I said in advance, the question was a simple one; the notion that it
> has a simple answer is ridiculous given that you did not answer it
>
Yes I did: I said that it is not a legitimate question, and therefore
has no answer, simple or complicated. When
- Original Message -
From: "Carrol Cox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 6:11 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:31120] Re: Re: RE: Re: "Western Rationality"
>
>
> Ian Murray wrote:
> >
> >
> >
>
Ian Murray wrote:
>
>
>
> How do we conjoin the best science and logic[s] we have in the service of
> our most mutually enobling and enabling emotions?
>
> No platitudes allowed :-)
>
When the question is a platitude the only correct answer is a platitude:
VIII. Social life is essenti
RE: [PEN-L:31107] Re: "Western Rationality"
- Original Message -
From: Devine, James
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 4:00 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:31113] RE: Re: "Western Rationality"
> >Ian:
> >Indeed, lots of the problems o
Title: RE: [PEN-L:31107] Re: "Western Rationality"
> >Ian:
> >Indeed, lots of the problems of modernity are the uses
> >to which logic, scientific thinking etc. have been put and those
> >problems are not reducible to the problems created by capitalism.
Carl:
> Yes, I think the basis of man
At 10:35 PM 10/08/2002 +, you wrote:
>Scientific study by its nature puts distance between a human observer and
>human subject, creates a hierarchical relationship and deliberately limits
>development of empathy. I think this has had a deeply damaging effect on
>human relations overall.
T
29 matches
Mail list logo
