Athanasios wrote:
>
> At 02:43 AM 08/01/98 -0500, William Kirk wrote:
Yes, this is interesting Tom, I think the post came through
complete. The problem is that I am not complete, but, I dare say this is
due to having been ground into Karl Popper philosophy. I have not read
Whitehead but I seem to think I have come across something of the ideas.
First, I think most imagine 'science' to be about things
material; what 'partly' qualifies an idea to be scientific is a) can the
idea be communicated to others, and b) is the idea repeatable, can it be
demonstrated. In short, do I know what I'm talking about, and can I show
that it works. Then, is the idea accepted by the immediate community?
So, we can only try our best, which is all too often not good
enough, especially when tramping about on ground where the signposts
aren't altogether clear.
Incidentally, in the posting from Aliman, a reference is made to
the quark; this, and eightfold symmetry, was discovered by Murry
Gell-Mann, a founder member of the Santa Fe Institute.
I get the drift of what you are saying, I made a note a few years
ago on something along the lines that I'll include here.
New Scientist 1917, 19 March 1994. Is the future transparent?
The leader covers predictions of the future, and states the
biggest changes are social, not really technological. At least,
technology changes but in ways which are not at all obvious. This has
been shown by looking at predictions made one hundred years ago. What
does appear to be a matter for the future is what is called
"fragmentation". The article begins with this.
'The future is another country: they do things differently there.
So differently in fact, that only the luckiest or most uncannily
prescient crystal ball gazer could ever get more than a fraction of any
scenario right.
But in a world which is growing more complex by the second,
surely thinking about the future is not only an interesting intellectual
exercise, it also helps us to understand the present more acutely.'
The article then ends with the following.
'The view that we are at the "end of history", or, at least, that
there are no viable alternative goals for politicians other than liberal
capitalism and affluent consumer-orientated culture, suggests that
fragmentation may now be a permanent feature of post-postmodern
capitalism.
Is a different future possible? Is there ever a way to judge
whether increased diversity and individualism is to be welcomed or not?
That is perhaps the one area where we found few avenues to explore.
With the end of Marx, there appears no one left with a radical
alternative future. And comprehensive critiques of the way we live now
are few and far between. If we are to make a completely different future,
then we await someone with a new ideology. Or we may face an ecological
catastrophe that will make nonsense of our postindustrial civilisation.'
1917. 19 Mar, 1994. Is broken ocean pump a global warning?
The Odden feature.
Anyway, I too have noted the Moore Austin discussion,
>arguments regarding old, new and yet newer ways and means of theorizing....Marx (or I should be quick to point out lest I get flack -
the various strands of Marxists theories/ists) and the "other" side
>(Capitalism?..)
A few years ago I found in the library Maxwell's laws of
electromagnetism, I cannot remember the author but the date of
publication was somewhere about 1967. I was interested in the chapter
dealing with measuring dielectric spheres from reflected radiation. The
author outlined that over one hundred years had been devoted to
experimental verification of the laws, but was doubtful about the
following hundred years. The verification was purely academic, and
decidedly obscure, in fact I had taken the book from the Andersonian
Library, Glasgow, and had been taken out in twenty five years by two
other persons.
The problem with verification was that about six months were
required to do one calculation, and this involved 76 calculators. I
suspect that 2^6 +2x6=76, so the calculators were using the management
system devised by Diophantes. This was expensive, the pay for 76 persons
in the 60's for six months wasn't easy to justify. I got a hint that the
author was imagining that the work was destined to total obscurity. (He
wasn't sure about computers and how fast they were going to be.)
Look where we are Now!! It's all singing all dancing Maxwell's
laws, look at the multimillion industries that have grown from them, I
mean here particle analysis, hold a murky liquid in front of the machine
and in an instant there is the number of particles and their size, in the
50 500 micron range. You want to know the size of ice particles or drops
of water 25 miles away, we get the pictures on the television every
night.
So, who can tell, one thing for sure, the ideas of Marx have not
been verified, so perhaps his time has yet to come. . .
I hope the parallel can be seen. On top of that, I notice or I am
beginning to become more aware of ridicule regarding Marx, not on wsn,
more on television and newspaper; is this a sign that someone is
seriously concerned? I wonder about this.
"With the end of Marx, there appears no one left with a radical
alternative future." What if it is said that Marx has not begun . . .
>Both world views subscribe to a Nihillistic teleology that is driving this >planet to extinction.
Yes, to give another analogy, the world is all aboard the SS
Capitalism, the unsinkable ship, the core folk are on the upper decks,
the peripheral folk are down below. Right now an iceberg has been
spotted. The officers are hypnotised by the notion of 'unsinkable',
deckchairs are rearranged on the upper decks.
When this ship goes down the loss will be of Biblical
proportions.
>Marxists theories/ists) and the "other" side (Capitalism?..) of a kind of "mapped" pendulum affair - those neo-liberal theories/ists who forever
>will proclaim the same kind of "grain of truth" as their eternal foes:
Yes, the point I make is the perception of the 'two sides' where
the map is a line, 1-space. I'd say most people believe this is 'the way
of it', as many hold their hands to say there is no room for argument.
Since the argument is polar, having a positive and negative, right and
left, good and bad, right and wrong, black and white, then if the 'right'
is 'good' by the simple rules we all use it follows that the 'left' is
'bad'. Therefore, most of us are preconditioned before we start on any
study of 'bad stuff'.
One other matter, in the perceived wonderful world of material
possession, I fancied there might have been a reaction to the process, in
that it is driven by political/capitalist ideas.
I'll get back about maps and words. This is worth a look at.
William Kirk.