[MD] atomic preferences and panexperientialism (panpyschism)

[ADRIE KINTZIGER]

Probably my European thinkingcluster is not tuned at the same wavelenght as
The American or British.

Its merely a question about the use of reductionisme spooking around in my
thinking, allow me to explain.
I was reading one of R Dawkins books , the past week, and 'iv noticed that
he works as a reductionist, but is not very carefull in the use of the
reductionism-branch.
At a certain page , Dawkins is explaining with the use of an example how all
DNA-based life, with the exeption of two minor
branches, is derived from 1 common dna delivering ancestor. But he doesn't
call the exeption by its name, calles it of no importance
because it is not enough to undermine the generalisation.
In my opinion , this is the use of selective reductionism, to serve a
purpose, Dawkins purpose to sell his product ,but it does not serve science
, or truth, not to explain the exeptions. very strange for a heavyweight
like Dawkins.This brought me to the term , selective reductionism.; the
intrinsic danger is to violate realisme, or hyperrealism, the intrinsic
danger is nesting a doctrine within realism.



Well, panpsychism as i understand it , i call it pandora's box , because it
contains all fields of philosophy, including the spiritual, as pandora's box
did. I was referring to one of your earlier posting  to bridge the eastern
philosophy, buddism, western philosophy ,to
make the field congruent, developing the context.I think i was thinking
about that.

It is a strong belief here, in these part of the world , that spiritualism
was to be found in pandora's box.

And here , in my thinking i am conflicting with the European
realism/reductionism approach, here it is all about narrowing the field down
to subject/object metaphysika, as in derived from reductionism, and there is
no place for spiritualism.

So , concluding , not preventing panpsychism, but contaminating it with
selective reductionism, to scale it down to s/o
I think this can be a danger, if used improperly.

Hope this is a bit more clear ,.
Greetzz, Adrie.




2010/8/30 david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com>

>
>
> Adrie said:
>  Well, Dave, as i was reading the line of thinking in the postings; the
> word selective reductionism popped up in my head. Not that it is of any
> importance. But selective reductionism  used incorrectly or improperly  is a
> potential widget capable of preventing the opening of  pandora's box called
> panpsychism, opening the field, the terra incognita--;the road ahaed of us.
> I think the message is , -expanding the field.
>
> dmb says:
> I don't understand what you mean. What is "selective reductionism"? How
> does it prevent panpsychism? What makes you say panpsychism is a pandora's
> box?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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/md/archives.html
>



-- 
parser