Re: [Sartre] Reality as "is", co-created and fracturing
>He further said something like Reagan would not look him in theI hope I may clearify this statement... read instead: (Reagan)
>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 &
seemed to think that nuclear weapons were merely "glorified bullets &
bows & arrows."
Apologies for any confusions.
- 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
>Dear Henry,Hi Elaine,
>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
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...
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;
& 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
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
p.s. what does "lol" mean?
BARTON REPPERT: Politics in the lab
The Christian Science Monitor
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
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
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
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
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
- 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
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
- 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
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
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
Ford, and Nixon are alarmed.... Leading scientists both inside
the administration have said politics is getting into
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
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
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
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
Barton Reppert, a former Associated Press reporter and editor in
Washington, New York and Moscow, is a freelance science and technology
© 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]