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

41392Re: ggggg gobbledygook

Expand Messages
  • Trinidad Cruz
    May 26, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "C. S. Wyatt" <existlist1@...> wrote:

      "(Unless you agree with Foucault that science is just a means by which
      authority maintains control. Psychology being his strawman in the
      debate.)"

      Thanks.

      I guess I would say, in by the way a purely scientific sense, that
      scientific endeavor is entirely an argument for authority driven by a
      given sense of meaning. That given sense of meaning can vary subtly
      from scientist to scientist but authority is the game, not gnosis for
      gnosis sake alone (some would call that faith, others authenticity) as
      at the outset the data can only be about human authority over its
      cosmological fabric since all data can only be more human than not.
      This does not make scientific data invalid, or even tainted; simply
      only valid in terms of human authority. The only epistemological
      concerns we cannot scientifically exclude are arguments over mental
      causality. To do so invalidates the whole position of being
      "scientific". Most scientists do not exclude such considerations, and
      as much as they would like to be characterized as generally pragmatic,
      they exhibit dual tendencies of opinion - one public, one
      disciplinary. In their defence it is often only a systemic response to
      their position in civilization. Lately a lot of the public literature
      of science has adopted a pluralism, often argued with quantum theory
      and mathematics, most of which including the "many worlders" is of no
      more scientific value than "Star Trek". I'm not sure why, and to me
      that is either indicative of an agenda, or a lack of ethics, or a
      degradation in the discipline and scholarship of part of the
      scientific community. My opinion tends toward the latter as I often
      evidence here. Science is essentially a monism concerned with human
      authority alone. Anything presented as "scientific" that drifts off
      that disciplinary course is not scientific, only mere ignorant
      conjecture that in fact does not survive for long in the dialectical
      situation of the philosopher - something he would never apologize for
      as his given sense of meaning is not the same as the scientist.

      Science, even as much as it would appeal to some "soft-scientists",
      cannot reject its given sense of meaning and remain "scientific".
      Science is concerned with obtaining a human dominion over anything
      that can be humanly considered. Most scientists believe that the
      considerations over human mental causality can eventually be resolved
      scientifically because they are realized in human terms. I maintain
      that cannot possibly be the case. The nature of literature itself, for
      most analytical philosophers, is seen as overwhelming such a
      proposition beyond any scientific resolution. How can we write of
      human mental causality in human mental terms that are causal in any
      way of any human understanding of any human mental causality? I
      suggest, and this is not a case for any orthodoxy, that such things
      are either a matter of faith, or choices for authentic action.
      Science, as wonderfully utilitarian as it can be for the future of
      humanity, is essentially erected upon the same simple given meaning as
      most religion - human beings are bereft of their dreams because they
      are either clumsy or stupid or both. Religion generally suggests
      running from the dogs as long as possible, but surrendering your life
      with dignity in the end rather than your aspirations. Science seeks to
      train and control the dogs for human purposes in order to obtain human
      aspirations. In the old dialectical world either was an authentic
      choice. That old dialectical world began to die with Hegel and
      Heidegger and ended with Sartre. As an existentialist I may be clumsy
      and stupid, but the greater responsibility for that clumsiness and
      stupidity lies the consequences of an absurd ethical choice - the
      cosmos is inadequate for the expression of my aspirations; in fact, in
      all that I can be aware of as a human being, only another human being
      contains the substance that can bear my dreams. Oh yes, I am a
      humanist, and in hell, because I have chosen to be, in order to
      sanctify my dreams into life in spite of life. It is no metaphor, just
      a sensible action dialectically considered and chosen, and
      synthetically quite scientific.

      Trinidad
    • Show all 69 messages in this topic