[MD] Mindwalk

[ian glendinning]

Ham,

You said
Sonya describes Descartes' concept of man as that of a
"mechanical machine" (which is untrue), and credits Descartes rather than
Aristotle for inventing the scientific method.  All three characters seem to
feel that "the world needs a new vision", and that it's the politicians'
(i.e, Government's) duty to provide it.  Sonya is disgruntled that her
research on lasers was grabbed .... etc

I say,

Firstly, I've had other correspndence on another forum about this
oversimplification of the Descartes point .... but that is the very
point. With hindsight through a veil of cultural history, we see a
simplified (simplistic) caricature of many more subtle things
Descartes, Newton Kepler (and Ariostotle) said - who cares who
"invented" science - it's an evolved imperfect accretion of many ideas
- what matters is what is good ?

Secondly, you're bringing your own free-market prejudice to Sonja's
position. (eg In your personal opinions about Sam and Liv as
"liberals") Nowhere does she expect the "government" to "provide" the
new vision. But by definition the government (of the people by the
people) must have an interest in encouraging / nurturing the right
kind of vision and values in the society it represents. Let's not
confuse the "social vs individual" issue again.

Anyone read Friedrich Durrenmatt (or seen the play) "Die Physiker"
(The Physicists) ?

There as with Sonja's point, her whole point, in not taking up the
offer to go work inside government, is that individuals, individual
scientists must and do take individual responsibility for the
consequences of their actions. She is describing that guilt, but
no-way is she laying the responsibility to fix it off on someone else
... she's simply educating the politician, with the help of the poet.
On the contrary, she will fix it her own way - with love for her
"family", seven generations along - symbolized by her daugher in the
closing scene.

An individual scientist - doing "pure science" - still has to be
interested as an individual in the values of the society in which she
is doing that science. It would be individually irresponsible not to.
That is the point. You're agreeing with her.

Regards
Ian

On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 5:59 AM, Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:
>
> Krimel, Marsha, Craig, and all --
>
> Like others here, I took Krimmel's advice and watched this movie on the
> Internet.  I'm not a fan of Sam Waterson or Liv Ullmann, who play a would-be
> American presidential candidate (Jack Anderson) and a European physicist
> (Sonya Hoffman) on sabbatical.  But the film does offer some interesting
> perspectives on philosophy versus political policies.
>
> For those who haven't reviewed it, the film is kind of a walking version of
> 'Dinner with Andre'.  The above stars are joined by John Heard in the role
> of Tom, the politician's speechwriter.  All the conversation takes place in
> and around the medieval abbey on Mount St. Michel, France, and it includes
> some interesting dialogue--especially Ullmann's analogies to explain
> subatomic physics as a science of relationships rather than particles.
> Frankly, I think Krimel's poetic review (3:02 PM, 3/11) captures the essence
> of this conversation more succinctly than Capra's movie does.
>
> For one thing, Liv as Sonya describes Descartes' concept of man as that of a
> "mechanical machine" (which is untrue), and credits Descartes rather than
> Aristotle for inventing the scientific method.  All three characters seem to
> feel that "the world needs a new vision", and that it's the politicians'
> (i.e, Government's) duty to provide it.  Sonya is disgruntled that her
> research on lasers was grabbed up by the military for warfare, instead of
> for the medical uses she had in mind. "Over 70% of the money for scientific
> research comes from the Pentagon," she whines.  "What's good for General
> Motors is not good for America," she says; "the obsessive pursuit of growth
> has to stop," which would seem inconsistent with her positive world vision.
> And there's far more talk about ecological values than human values (which I
> suspect was Capra's theme, along with the "interrelatedness of all things").
>
> While the screenplay is a three-way philosophical discourse with three
> individuals of different backgrounds, I don't share Krimel's enthusiastic
> comment that it discusses "nearly everything that makes the MoQ one of my
> personal obsessions."  Perhaps Anderson's friend comes closest to Pirsig's
> metaphysics--if not the Tao--when he quotes a poem by the Chilean poet Pablo
> Neruda:
>    "I walked around as you do, investigating
>    the endless star, and in my net, during the night,
>    I woke up naked, the only thing caught,
>    a fish trapped inside the wind."
> "Don't you feel that the only thing you ever catch is your own self back
> again?" Tom asks Sonya.
>
> I'm not sure whether it was Krimel or Marsha who initially recommended this
> movie, but thanks for bringing it to my attention.
>
> Regards,
> Ham
>
>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>