Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [Sartre] Reality as "is", co-created and fracturing

Expand Messages
  • Henry W. Peters
    ... I hope I may clearify this statement... read instead: (Reagan) seemed to think that nuclear weapons were merely glorified bullets & bows & arrows.
    Message 1 of 9 , Jan 5, 2004
      >He further said something like Reagan would not look him in the
      >eye... & that the course of discussion revealed the distinct
      >possibility that this man (Reagan) did not really understand that
      >nuclear weapons were anything more than "glorified bullets & bows &
      >arrows."


      I hope I may clearify this statement... read instead: (Reagan)
      seemed to think that nuclear weapons were merely "glorified bullets &
      bows & arrows."

      Apologies for any confusions.

      Regards,
      Henry
    • Elaine Phipps-Earl
      Dear Henry, Please correct me if i am wrong. Are u meaning to say that while we have managed to discover physical laws of nature, manipulate and transmute the
      Message 2 of 9 , Jan 5, 2004
        Dear Henry,

        Please correct me if i am wrong. Are u meaning to say that while we have
        managed to discover physical laws of nature, manipulate and transmute the
        physical to create our own manifestations of power, our own processes of
        logic are inferior to the power we have created?

        Love & Massive Hugs
        Elaine
      • Henry W. Peters
        ... Hi Elaine, First off, I would like to make mention that I think there are even significant scientific/technological success stories humans can claim... in
        Message 3 of 9 , Jan 7, 2004
          >Dear Henry,
          >
          >Please correct me if i am wrong. Are u meaning to say that while we have
          >managed to discover physical laws of nature, manipulate and transmute the
          >physical to create our own manifestations of power, our own processes of
          >logic are inferior to the power we have created?
          >
          >Love & Massive Hugs
          >Elaine

          Hi Elaine,

          First off, I would like to make mention that I think there are even
          significant scientific/technological success stories humans can
          claim... in part or in whole...

          But as to your above interpretation: Close... but because I believe
          that it would not really help us get to the heart of the matter,
          i.e., possibly altering the situation... I think I would not
          necessarily use the appellation "inferior," at least in broad or
          sweeping generalizations... Along with the possibility of self
          destruction resulting from such activity (science/technology run
          amok), critiquing this dilemma, calls into question relationships;
          like our ability to not be determined by a "pastness..." & the
          like... I guess I see these "powers" as you say, as being not
          sufficiently & appropriately understood... & our "own processes of
          logic" would be deficient... in, say, attentiveness... vision...
          spirit... humility...

          One hesitates, in such an abbreviated context, to use the word
          freedom... because of the largely unquestioned abuse this term has
          been historically brought towards... (a kind of entrapment, I might
          call this abuse) but non the less... think there is no escaping the
          importance of... this concept... i.e. what makes it possible for
          humans to distinguish ourselves from our surroundings????? Is this
          not a rather basic "existential" question... of sorts?

          It may be... that the same or similar thought/mind processes/powers
          which can & have & do lead to the afore mentioned "fracturing" (or
          getting off track, separations, alienation & so forth) when
          transformed or made self aware thought/action developments may be
          transformed, somehow, empowered to produce change... productive of
          more than a science that is so called for science sake... & or just
          monetary 'success,' & or merely subservient to the powers that be...
          but the will to transform, & needed resource must then be mustered...
          forth... somehow... understanding there are no guaranteed out
          comes... in experiment... by definition.

          In other words, relationships productive of relationship/s with
          nature & others that may be more actively & experientially
          considerate (ergo, engaged) with the processes of nature...
          Producing relevant novelty (not the hee-hee kind, like say a whoopee
          cushion, etc.). Knowing that we do not know... seems also important
          to be able to appropriately recognize along with knowing that we
          do... & also seems to me; to need a kind of confidence which comes
          not from any exterior discovery anyone could make... (say;
          humility... creativity).

          & then, devise ways to work with these processes... & who is to say
          that a part of the consideration/s couldn't be the mutually forward
          thinking accommodation of the needs for everyone? & it may just be
          that the "everyone" is an essential aspect for the possibility of
          forwarding of "success" of any living human project... I realize
          that there are alternatives... I say, we may as well check out the
          ones that seem to be good choice for ones self & then be best for the
          mostest... & go for it... if possible & or timely (but this is
          another matter).

          This seems to me... to call for a science which is integral to
          imperatives of human need... attentive to natures ways... & around &
          around (spider spiral like).

          I received the below forwarded article on a environmental activist
          discussion list in which I participate... it may illustrate
          somewhat, further difficulties some of the condition which we find
          our selves in... & the need for appropriate transcendence. Please
          excuse me if some on this list feel/think it to be not on topic... I
          mean it as a further illustration of the NEED for resolution of some
          of the above & the problems highlighted in the below forwarded
          article...

          Best Regards,
          Henry

          p.s. what does "lol" mean?

          ----------> forward------>>>

          Star Tribune
          Mpls., MN

          Opinion

          BARTON REPPERT: Politics in the lab
          The Christian Science Monitor
          http://24hour.startribune.com/24hour/opinions/story/1108538p-7734418c.html

          Published January 6, 2004

          GAITHERSBURG, Md. (CSM) - In theory, science is supposed to be cold,
          analytical, dispassionate - and studiously apolitical. But in the real
          world of competing demands for federal research dollars, savvy scientists
          of all disciplines - from cognitive psychologists running rats through
          mazes to nuclear physicists operating massive particle accelerators -
          recognize that a certain amount of political meddling in their
          research by
          policymakers in the executive branch and Congress is to be expected.
          However, there are limits - limits the Bush administration has frequently
          disregarded by imposing stringent political controls on a broad
          variety of
          federal scientific programs and activities. This has raised acute concern
          in the American scientific community that the administration's drive to
          stamp its conservative values on science isn't just affecting policy
          decisions, but undermining the integrity of the U.S. research
          infrastructure itself.
          Playing politics with science is nothing new in Washington, of course.
          President Nixon shut down his White House science office
          because he didn't
          like the advice he was getting on arms control and the supersonic
          transport. Nevertheless, several science-policy experts argue that no
          presidency has been more calculating and ideological than the Bush
          administration in setting political parameters for science. President
          Bush's blunt rejection of the Kyoto Protocol on global warming, and his
          decision restricting stem-cell research are only the most obvious and
          widely publicized examples of what has become a broader pattern
          across the
          administration.
          At the same time, the president's chief science adviser, atomic physicist
          John Marburger, who is largely well-regarded in the scientific community,
          reportedly has very little substantive access to Bush and his senior
          aides, and his office has been moved out of the White House complex.
          Some examples of the Bush administration's interference with science
          include:

          - The removal from a National Cancer Institute Web site of a scientific
          analysis concluding that abortions do not increase a woman's risk of
          breast cancer. That move, in November 2002, contradicted the
          broad medical
          consensus, and members of Congress protested the change. In response, the
          NCI updated its Web site to include the conclusion of a panel of experts
          that induced abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer
          risk.

          - Dropping a leading addiction expert from the University of New Mexico,
          Dr. William Miller, from consideration for membership on the National
          Advisory Council on Drug Abuse after an administration aide quizzed him
          about whether he opposed abortion ("no") and had voted for Bush ("no").

          - The elimination of the section on global warming in a comprehensive
          Environmental Protection Agency report on the environment last June. EPA
          officials decided to eliminate the section on climate change after an
          earlier draft prompted the White House to demand major revisions.

          The politicization of U.S. science has drawn close attention from leading
          scientific journals. Bush administration interference with federal
          scientific advisory committees as well as peer-review panels for research
          grants is an "epidemic of politics," editorialized Science, the
          influential weekly journal of the American Association for the
          Advancement
          of Science. "What is unusual about the current epidemic is not that the
          Bush administration examines candidates for compatibility with its
          'values.' It's how deep the practice cuts, in particular, the way it now
          invades areas once immune to this kind of manipulation," wrote editor in
          chief Donald Kennedy.
          Prominent Democrats in Congress have expressed frustration over
          the mixing
          of politics with science.
          "I think what they've done is unprecedented," says Rep. Henry Waxman (D)
          of California, ranking minority member of the House Government Reform
          Committee. "Even prominent Republicans who served under
          Presidents Reagan,
          Ford, and Nixon are alarmed.... Leading scientists both inside
          and outside
          the administration have said politics is getting into
          previously protected
          areas."
          Mr. Waxman's committee issued a report in August concluding that the
          administration's political interference with science has led to
          "misleading statements by the president, inaccurate responses
          to Congress,
          altered Web sites, suppressed agency reports, erroneous international
          communications, and the gagging of scientists."
          The report - which can be seen at
          http://www.house.gov/reform/min/politicsandscience - alleges abuses in 21
          areas ranging from abstinence-only sex education to breast cancer,
          drinking water, food safety, global warming, prescription-drug
          advertising, stem-cell research, and workplace safety.
          White House press secretary Scott McClellan dismissed the report as
          "riddled with distortions, inaccuracies and omissions." And, he said,
          "This administration looks at the facts, and reviews the best available
          science based on what's right for the American people. The only
          one who is
          playing politics about science is Congressman Waxman."
          Several senior-science policy specialists say that while the
          Waxman report
          has a partisan tone, most of its major points are well taken. Neal Lane,
          who served as director of the National Science Foundation and then as
          presidential science adviser during the Clinton administration, observed:
          "It's always the case in the White House ... that science is one of a
          number of sets of issues that a president, a political
          policymaker, has to
          consider when they're making decisions. Sometimes the decision goes in a
          way that the science would not suggest. But there's such a long list of
          egregious actions taken by this administration that I think it
          essentially
          gives a false impression of what the science really is and strongly
          suggests the administration simply doesn't care to find out."
          Professor Lewis Branscomb, a science policy expert at Harvard and former
          director of the National Bureau of Standards under Nixon, notes that on
          the question of stacking federal scientific advisory committees, "I'm not
          aware that (Nixon) ever hand-picked ideologues to serve on advisory
          committees, or dismissed from advisory committees very well-qualified
          people if he didn't like their views.... What's going on now is in many
          ways more insidious. It happens behind the curtain. I don't think we've
          had this kind of cynicism with respect to objective scientific advice
          since I've been watching government, which is quite a long time."
          Perhaps the corrosive issue of political interference with science won't
          be crucial to Bush's re-election chances, but by undercutting the
          integrity of the scientific community, it may be crucial to the long-term
          quality of life not just in the U.S., but also in other countries around
          the world.

          Barton Reppert, a former Associated Press reporter and editor in
          Washington, New York and Moscow, is a freelance science and technology
          writer.

          © Copyright 2004 Star Tribune. All rights reserved.

          NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
          distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in
          receiving this information for research and educational purposes.



          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.