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

Cause vs. Reason (was Re: The administrations war)

Expand Messages
  • Mary
    FIT LANGUAGE after Richard Dawkins science doesn t unweave the poetry of a rainbow but justly strips the gods of shuttle and warped claims with sparkling webs
    Message 1 of 55 , Aug 1, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      FIT LANGUAGE
      after Richard Dawkins

      science doesn't unweave
      the poetry of a rainbow
      but justly strips the gods
      of shuttle and warped
      claims with sparkling webs
      which trick and trap
      then ungraciously
      collapse
      when fitter words appear
      explaining why life is
      too short
      for many their meager bliss
      snuffed out
      and for others too long

      moments of joy
      and terror
      are not balanced
      with the precision of
      a blind watchmaker
      or blamed on
      a reckless devil's chaplain
      who adapts to survive
      innocent of intent

      is cause
      a humbler palliation
      or is it true
      everything happens
      for a reason
      __________

      Polly,

      I've reworked that poem yet again, to more clearly express my ambivalence. I sort of understand where you're coming from, since I also once fled to the arms of scientific explanation in reaction to the horror and suffering of this place. I escaped the torment of reason for the comfort of cause but now find it too cold for my sensibilities. I feel philosophy is a warmer meeting ground.

      The science of neurochemistry is not integrated holistically into our greater reality which is far more than a mechanical or reductionist rendering of processes. You're neglecting the fact that reason can alter neurochemistry, whether it's the reason of the individual herself or of those who wish to apply remedies. Also, there is as much danger in considering the exception to be the norm, as in considering the norm adequate for explaining away the exception. I like what I recently read in the introduction to Sartre's Critique about the difference between analytical-scientific reason and dialectical reason:

      "In the first place, no one can discover the dialectic while keeping the point of view of analytical Reason; which means, among other things, that no one can discover the dialectic while remaining external* to the object under consideration Indeed, for anyone considering a given system in exteriority, no specific investigation can show whether the movment of the system is a continuous unfolding or a succession of discrete instants. The stance of the desituated experimenter, however, tends to perpetuate analytical Reason as the model of intelligibility; the scientist's passivity in relation to the system will tend to reveal to him a passivity of the sytem in relation to himself. The dialectic reveals itself only to an observer situated in interiority, that is to say, to an investigator who lives his investigation both as a possible contribution to the ideology of the entire epoch and as the particular praxis of an individual defined by his historical and personal career within the wider history which conditions it. In short, in order to preserve the Hegelian idea (that Consciousness knows itself in the Other and knows the Other in itself), while completely discarding its idealism, I must be able to say that the praxis of everyone, as a dialectical movement, must reveal itself to the individual as the necessity of his own praxis and, conversely, that the freedom, for everyone, of his individual praxis must re-emerge in everyone so as to reveal to the individual a dialectic which produces itself and produces him in so far as it is produced."

      Philosophy, as dialectic, must guide analytical reason, and not vice versa, because we're never desituated. Interiority and exteriority aren't separate but flow into one another. So to create solutions to human problems strictly on a neurochemical basis is to avoid recognizing the neurochemistry of the researcher whose own bias is already evident. Their metaphysical baggage is safely tucked away so it never suffers exposure to the light of the dialectic but is nevertheless evident by its trace.

      Mary
    • Mary
      Tom, Bohm actually agreed with Einstein that the Copenhagen Interpretation was incomplete. For a simple explanation, which also points to Bohm s relationships
      Message 55 of 55 , Aug 10, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        Tom, Bohm actually agreed with Einstein that the Copenhagen Interpretation was incomplete.
        For a simple explanation, which also points to Bohm's relationships with Einstein and Murray Gell-Mann, you might google and read: Dialectical Materialism and the Construction of a New Quantum theory: David Joseph Bohm by Christian Forstner. Bohn's pilot wave theory dismisses the wave function as a mathematical entity and restores an objective universe wherein incomplete knowledge of the observer doesn't affect the location or momentum of an electron. The article also touches on something you mention from time to time, causality vs. chance. Bohm says both exist as complementary opposites. Mary



        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "tom" <tsmith17_midsouth1@...> wrote:

        What really matters for me is . the more active role of the observer in quantum physics . According to quantum physics the observer has indeed a new relation to
        the physical events around him in comparison with the classical observer, who is merely a spectator.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.