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

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

Expand Messages
  • Herman
    Hi Mary, ... I like your poem, and I also like that it ends as a question :-) Some more comments interspersed below. ... I understand what you are saying, and
    Message 1 of 55 , Aug 2, 2010
      Hi Mary,

      On 2 August 2010 01:29, Mary <josephson45r@...> wrote:
      > 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 like your poem, and I also like that it ends as a question :-) Some
      more comments interspersed below.

      > 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.

      I understand what you are saying, and accept that as being part of my
      own motivations from time to time. It leaves a question for me,
      though, about whether liking and disliking should be part of the
      method when questioning what is true or false.

      > 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.

      Could you provide some evidence for that claim, that reason can alter

      > 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.

      I agree wholeheartedly. That is why I suggested to Louise that we move
      away from that laden paradigm of mental/physical dualism.

      > 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.

      I agree. On that note, I am firmly in the camp of Hume, that one
      cannot derive an ought from an is. And that applies to any level of
      explanation, IMO. But if the human problem is a function of a
      misunderstanding of how the world works, an incorrect explanation of
      it, then the problem itself is illusory, wouldn't you think?

      > 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.

      No doubt.

      Thanks for your post, Mary.


      > 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
        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.