[MD] What is SOM?

[David M]

Hi Krim

Good point. But I think of it more as a democracy than
either a human domain or worse, a Lord's domain.
Why? Well quite clearly things conflict. People conflict,
things come and go, destruction is on a massive scale,
how anything ever gets off the ground floor level is a
wonder. What do you think?

DM


>
> [Krimel]
> I would say that just about everything you say above is about preserving
> "the myth of control." If we aren't in control perhaps some agency is. If 
> we
> aren't perhaps something else is. Something, a law, a principle or an 
> entity
> must be.
>
> Even religions function to help us either preserve or deal with "the myth 
> of
> control." Buddhist do this by asking us to stop desiring it. Christianity
> advises us to submit to a divine will that is indistinguishable from 
> chance.
> The mystics urge us to achieve an emotional integration that feels like
> certainty.
>
> I am suggesting that the "myth of control," like my inner Pollyanna,
> probably can not be banished but we ought at least to see it for what it 
> is.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> [David M]
>> I understand your concern with overly romantic attacks on science
>> and agree we should keep sight of sciences many benefits. But
>> there is a case against scientism and reductionism and essentialism
>> to be made against some approachs to science that I think inprove
>> our understanding of science. I also think there is a non supernatural
>> case against a type of naturalism, see this for explanation:
>>
>> http://www.philosophers.co.uk/cafe/phil_may2003.htm
>>
>> [Krimel]
>> Your reading suggests while not always welcome are usually interesting 
>> and
>> eventually appreciated. But here the argument is not naturalism as 
>> opposed
>> to supernaturalism. I think Ham and dmb and Platt each in their own way
>> wants to embrace the supernatural while hiding in their respective
>> closets.
>>
>> [David M]
>> I also agree that the aim of MOQ is to recontextualise the modern
>> world and offer a better context for understanding life, science and
>> society than SOM does. For me, we need to have an understanding of
>> how we base our knowledge on lived experience. Lived experience is
>> our context, this is a context of qualities, values, change, patterns, 
>> and
>> the potential for change and action. Given experience as it is and
>> understood (described) in terms like these we can go on to understand
>> how we can have scientific, personal, emotional, sexual, aesthetic,
>> social,
>> political, etc forms of knowledge. Experience is a larger category that
>> contains 'objects' of knowledge that exceed those that science wants to,
>> or
>> can, address.
>>
>> [Krimel]
>> I have no problem with any of that with the possible exception of your
>> move
>> toward imbuing the inorganic with "experience." Even there I suspect the
>> disagreement is mainly semantic. I would add that all I think science 
>> does
>> is formalize the most natural process we have available to us for gaining
>> knowledge which is to check things out, mess with them and see what
>> happens.
>>
>>
>> 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/
>>
>
>
> 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/
>
> 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/
>