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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 9 , Jan 5, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      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 2 of 9 , Jan 7, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        >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.