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

Re: Materialism

Expand Messages
  • ted.wrinch
    I think we could add to the Zander-Staudenmaier method of historiography that of the (Diana) Winters method, where one projects one s own prejudices onto
    Message 1 of 5 , Feb 8, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      I think we could add to the Zander-Staudenmaier method of historiography that of the (Diana) Winters' method, where one projects one's own prejudices onto whatever someone that disagrees with one says their understanding of a situation is. Diana apparently has a longterm understanding, from her Christian Science background she's said, that the word 'materialism' is a 'code' for 'Jewishness' (WC message 13546 and etc). When I spent over a year attempting, without much success, to discuss the epistemological meaning of 'materialism' with Der Staudi, she accused me at various times being an anti-Semite for having the temerity to discuss it at all. Of course, what I was actually concerned with is broadly the same issue as Midgley is here (though I focused more directly on the epistemic elements), which is why I found her review worth pointing out. But this is a difficult concept for most Hole dwellers to grasp because they don't have a clear concept of what 'materialism' means, beyond their standard set of prejudices concerning 'intellectualism', 'abstractionism', 'anti-Semitism' and etc.

      T.

      Ted Wrinch


      --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ted.wrinch" <ted.wrinch@...> wrote:
      >
      > There is a new book by Ruper Sheldrake called 'The Science Delusion' and there is an interesting review of it by Mary Midgley in lat month's Guardian:
      >
      > http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/jan/27/science-delusion-rupert-sheldrake-review
      >
      > The opening paragraph should be salutary for Der Staudi's facile and ignorant (or perhaps polemical and wishful thinking) claims that all is well in the academy ( WC message 22046 presents a typical example of his views: "In reality, such themes ['imagination and alternative forms of knowledge'] are discussed extensively and sympathetically in many different contemporary contexts and receive considerable attention in mainstream scholarship and popular culture."). Midgley says:
      >
      > "The unlucky fact that our current form of mechanistic materialism rests on muddled, outdated notions of matter isn't often mentioned today. It's a mess that can be ignored for everyday scientific purposes, but for our wider thinking it is getting very destructive. We can't approach important mind-body topics such as consciousness or the origins of life while we still treat matter in 17th-century style as if it were dead, inert stuff, incapable of producing life. And we certainly can't go on pretending to believe that our own experience – the source of all our thought – is just an illusion, which it would have to be if that dead, alien stuff were indeed the only reality…."
      >
      > Midgley's bio is presented here:
      >
      > "Mary Midgley, aged 81, may be the most frightening philosopher in the country: the one before whom it is least pleasant to appear a fool. One moment she sits by her fire in Newcastle like a round-cheeked tabby cat; the next she is deploying a savage Oxonian precision of language to dissect some error as a cat dissects a living mouse.
      > She believes that philosophy matters, perhaps especially to the people who think it is merely a garnish on the brute facts of life - "like the bed of tulips in front of a nuclear power station", as she puts it with typical vividness. That is why she is so much fun to read and why she has become the foremost scourge of scientific pretension in this country: someone whose wit is admired even by those who feel she sometimes oversteps the mark…."
      >
      > http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2001/jan/13/philosophy
      >
      > The contents of the article should be pretty straightforward and well understood for people familiar with Steiner's ideas. Indeed, criticism could be made of some of the views she expresses, such as the notion that the change to the modern world-view was prompted by people becoming "accustomed to machine-imagery instead – first becoming fascinated by the clatter of clockwork.." in the early modern era. Machines were known about, and even constructed, in ancient Hellenic Alexandria, but this did not cause people's worldview to change. What's missing in her explanation, of course, is the evolution of consciousness. But small points like this aside, it's a worthwhile article.
      >
      > T.
      >
      > Ted Wrinch
      >
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.