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: "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 sparrow sings
There are
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 complexity of modern technologies requires that R&D
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
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
Title: RE: "Western Rationality"
yeah,
I've been stupid in many ways.
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
-Original Message-From: Eric Nilsson
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 9:17
AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: [PEN-
>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 of modernity are the uses
> >to which logic, s
19 matches
Mail list logo
