rjohara.net

Search:  

Darwin-L Message Log 1:148 (September 1993)

Academic Discussion on the History and Theory of the Historical Sciences

This is one message from the Archives of Darwin-L (1993–1997), a professional discussion group on the history and theory of the historical sciences.

Note: Additional publications on evolution and the historical sciences by the Darwin-L list owner are available on SSRN.


<1:148>From huh@u.washington.edu  Thu Sep 16 14:05:04 1993

Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1993 11:03:13 -0700 (PDT)
From: Mark Rushing <huh@u.washington.edu>
Subject: Re: A reply to Ramsden
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu

morris,

the problem with Epistomology is that it is easy to become lost in a
categorical tangles.  when speaking from a sense of the Absolute, even if
you Believe we are in a Process which "will hopefully approach a 'natural'
classification" <-- indeed, taken out of context when considering the
Origins of your Argument --> you speak from a Power structure, which will
"always be fragmentary and abstract because of the data we use."

this Structure is the Tool we call Science.  but it seems to me that many
people do not realize the inherent Power of this Tool upon the organisms
who created and continue to use it.  their Systemics, in whatever form
they take within the Individual, the Discipline, the Society -- are fed
data which is digested one way, then digested another, the results being
eventually shaped into an Ideal (which you might call a hypothesis based
on available evidence).  lovely.  it has brought us to where we are now,
most likely -- the good and the bad.  which brings me back to my point --
which is why i embarked upon a traipse into the hallowed halls of Science
to begin with.  there are many echos here, by the way...  (do you find
that 'cute' or 'humorous'?  perhaps you would like me to Define the Meaning?)

well, i'm a poet, not a scientist.  i would say that the meaning you find,
if any, is more relevant that anything i could tell you.  i simply supply
the words, like a woodcutter shaping small, lettered cubes.  maybe they're
made for children.  maybe they're like casting runes.  maybe they make you
feel angry because this should be Science.

when you say, "a person uses his/her cortex to modify sub-cortical
perceptions" do you notice that Person is outside of his own mind?  as if,
a Person will fiddle with the workings of his own mind from some distant,
or perhaps Other location.  where are you?  this, along with all of what
you've said, and along with all of what i've said, is unimportant.  we all
have the desire for unattainable Absolute Answers seared into our flesh --
does that ring a bell?  what Propels us?  but as you are well aware,
hopefully, people have been crushed under this Absolute weight for centuries.

so when you look into the world, when you look into the mind of another
person, through their messages (in their eyes, on your screen, in the
vibrational waves through aether), i Believe it is important to attempt to
understand what you are hearing and seeing (perceiving) before you so
abruptly return to the Inner Sanctum to grab the clubs and instruments of
Dialectic Warfare.

so when you encounter something Outside of your terms, like what peter
wrote, or like what i have written (i presume much, peter) if you would
truly like to venture on to new Discoveries -- we have to get there
together.  Nothing is familiar outside of our own Terms.  but it's pretty
large out there.  it just bothered me that you were a rifle-toting
Dialectician in an interdisciplinary setting.  we have the opportunity to
be so much more....

end of appeal to the modern church.

what you said about refining our Schema in a "systematic" manner was
interesting.  epistomology is fine with me, as long as it remains
understood that there will never be an Epistomological basis for it, other
than self-reference.  is mathematics the same way?  by the way, it seems
to me that the notion of Objective Analysis in science is very relevent to
the consideration of evolution.  do you believe that such a thing exists
(Objective Analysis), or do we simply get infinitely close?

                mark

           mark rushing
          post office box 85267
        seattle, washington  98145-1267

           206.329.8070
         huh@u.washington.edu
         rushing@battelle.org
       Mark.Rushing@f157.n343.z1.fidonet.org

Your Amazon purchases help support this website. Thank you!


© RJO 1995–2016