Hi Bobby,
I've read your commentary of the SODV paper, and I think I agree with a
lot of your thoughts. Just I don't know if this was exactly the month
focus, I've been waiting in vain for an intervention from Richard....
Anyway, I comment on few of your lines. I perfectly know I'm completely
off the focus, hope that the discussion facilitator will not argue, this
month. :-)
===============
Science, Art, Technology
> Instead of being Mr Nice he should have called a spade - a spade, but
this
> was a science conference and so...
> To me at least it is very clear that scientists and intellectuals
today
> are very much subservient to society and politics on a gross level and
> very much driven and motivated by their own biological values.
I strongly agree. And here comes my thesis that we have not still really
entered the intellectual era. Up to now, intellect has reached a certain
freedom from social patterns, but really intellect is not the leader of
evolution. Actually, the most successful intellectual applications
today are about technology (IMO, the art of solving the social basic
problem, that is to keep at bay biological life). Not certainly about
philosophy...
> Science and its applications all are subject to the social and
cultural contexts.
Of course, just like social patterns are supported by biological
patterns. But while social patterns are able to "devour" biology,
intellect is just fed by society....
> >As Bohr might have loved to observe, science and art are just two
different
> >complementary ways of looking at the same thing.
> Sadly, science has ended up being more destructive than constructive,
and
> even
> more sadly it has got into the head of man to the point where nothing
else
> is considered real.Fortunately we cant say the same for art.
>
> Is a constructive fusion possible ? I would think so.
> Science is based upon Reason. Art is based upon intuition.
> These are counterprocesses.
IMO science needs intuition, as well. And actually, science is an art.
It is creative and methodic. The actual divorce is not science/art, it's
art/technology (offered by Pirsig in ZAMM, as you know). I think this
divorce is probably definitive, as technology is the intellectual
application for social purposes, while art has been able (to a certain
extent) to get rid of society. It is not technology which has abandoned
art, it is vice versa! Technology has become awful when artists
abandoned it to engineers... A possible fusion should come when people
will pretend firstly beautiful products, and possibly useful. Only that
day engineers will be necessarily firstly artists...
================
Complementary reality.
> From my understanding, DQ has properties of both
> continuity
> as well as the discrete, ie it has a quantum nature, but again this
is my
> interpretation, there are no fixed conceptions here.
>
IMO, Q (reality) has both properties of continuity (D-Q) and of
discreteness (s-Q). Our intellect has two ways to investigate reality:
focus on D, by means of intuition, holistic experience, switching off as
many static filters as possible;
focus on s, by means of method, analytic science, searching for a
limited and defined truth.
So my conclusion is:
THE ART OF INTELLECT IS TO BALANCE holistic, intuitive, aesthetic,
cReaTive experience and analytic, methodic, RiTual science.
Bye
Marco.
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:30 BST