Wilson, Dale wrote:
> Hi Misha,
> > One thing to bear in mind about Galileo, for me, is: as Einstein
> > taught us all, terrestrial physical principles don't necessarily
> > apply to celestial bodies in a saddleshaped universe where light is
> > a snake devouring its own tail and yesterday is tomorrow.
> Everything (except subatomic particles) in our tiny solar system moves
> so slowly that classical mechanics is extremely accurate.
Everything in our tiny solar system is made up of subatomic particles.
> > > What are the other levels?
> > Heisenberg and Schroedinger had things to say about the quantum.
> > Norbert Weiner and Benoit Mandelbrot gave us glimpses at the
> > stochastic level.
> What does that have to do with celestial mechanics or sustainable
> agriculture? Those phenomena are too small to be very relevant.
> > There's the poetic...the spiritual...the economic...the
> > artistic. Spheres within spheres, eh? Galileo didn't
> > deal with those. Just with the one.
> I see, when you say "other levels" you really mean what people think
> about, rather than the system itself. So, if I were to write a poem
> about the solar system, that would be a different level than Galileo was
> addressing. I can go along with that. I thought you meant something
> more profound by "level."
**I** can't go along with that. The proper concept here isn't so trivial as
switching hats. The profundness (being, essence) of a poem doesn't stem from
it's rhyme or rhythm but from the integrity, accuracy and scope of the
underlying concept and paradigm, instictive or otherwise.
> > His views were mechanistically more accurate than other views
> > of his time, but still terribly partial.
> It was up to Newton to complete the picture, for practical purposes.
> > For instance, I'll bet he never looked at a full moon and thanked it
> > for its tidekeeping and drumming of rhythms of life on earth.
> That's nice, but doing it doesn't affect the operation of the solar
> system, so far as anybody can tell.
The interrelations are undeniably present and part of the rest of the body of
knowlege (a 4-d event).
> >> Do they have any consequence in the operation of the solar system?
> > But to answer your question: Yes. No. Maybe. What's your frame of
> > reference? Mechanistic operation of the solar system? Then
> > mechanistic principles are your tool. If the frame of reference is
> > mechanism, then it's unfair (and sloppy thinking) to judge other
> > levels of knowing for their inability to account for or predict
> > mechanism.
> You are changing vocabulary on me. By using Einsteinian jargon (even
> though relativistic conditions clearly do not apply), you try to infuse
> respectability into your ambiguous concept of "level".
The concept of Mechanism presuposes purpose, and purpose may be the principle
creative force, embodied by all the rest of the elements (as far they've been
defined to date). (We don't want to invent any, except biologically - the old
fashined, evolutionary - not recombinant - way).
> I reject the notion that reality is parochialized into competing "frames" or
> "levels". Reality is one (even if we only know a little).
Within the context of human experience, this is true - but if we are honest,
we must be willing to extapolate the possibility of endless fractal-like
universes that go beyond our own sphere of competence.
> Further, I reject the proposition that domains of knowledge exist which are
All that can be postulated can be measured, but it hasn't all been conceived
yet and doesn't have to be. Particulary here on sanet, the universe is an
organic, growing entity.
> In a practical sense this means that if LionKuntz sells me a
> "biodynamic" formulation that has been blessed by her shaman, I can put
> in replicated trials and find out if it works using an F test. Finding
> out why it works could be a lot harder, I admit!
Is Lion a she then?
> See Misha, I think you (and several others on the list) are ontological
> relativists. You want to reify your mental constructs rather than
> immerse yourself in the simple reality of nature.
Dale has a point - but revels in his discipline, which has it's own
limitations. He's much better at applying it to the statements of others than
to postulating an alternative theory, and is subject to analysis by the same
kind of consistent and unifying thought he likes to personify. (I
personnally have no problem with most of what he says, although rarely I'll
take exception to what I may consider to be an inconsistent or irresponsible
statement - which are getting much harder to find - and I don't intend to be
> > I see that on SANET sometimes--old battles getting played out that I
> > sure as sheepdip would like to see us bury and move beyond. To issues
> > like figuring out how to provide food in a way that respects land and
> > people.
> I wish that the environmental movement could get past the romantic
> relativism (having roots in mind/nature dualism) that sees traditional
> agricultural science as unnatural. I don't believe that the competing
> viewpoints are incommensurable. I think I understand where you are
> coming from.
> The academic left has seized on this whole incommensurability
> idea(different modes of knowledge) as a tool to drive a wedge between
> the scientific community, and farmers trying to be environmentally
> responsible. I think this is very unfortunate.
Perhaps incredibly (for some), I agree.
> > Or the ongoing insistence by many members of the ag science
> > Establishment that small-scale farmers are driven by heresy--no,
> > wait, I meant "hearsay"--and woo-woo nonsense like the Gaia
> > hypothesis and concern for social justice, community, and the spirit.
> I think you are driving that wedge right now!
> > But that's a discussion for another pot o' joe, companeros.
> I agree!!
> > And I think it brings us back to the front end of this entire thread,
> > experiential and scientific knowledge. There's that snake again.
> I thought I killed the snake!
Is Dale the "Conan the Barbarian" of sanet? If so, what's the name of THIS
movie (the one we're all starring in now)?
> Folks, don't be fooled by the new age "physicists." Scientific knowledge IS
> experiential knowledge. That frame-of-reference stuff is just smoke and
> mirrors hiding a political agenda. The political agenda is a worthy debate,
> but let's try not to
> entangle it with the simpler reality of agricultural systems.
I't's time to develope better, environmentally and organism friendly
production systems and alternative products and get them to market. However,
it's also time for the rules of the market to include the economic costs to
the environment that aren't being paid for by many of those using it for
furthering their own needlessly contaminating ends. Achieving this does
require political will and a political agenda.
Douglas M. Hinds, Director General Centro para el Desarrollo Comunitario y Rural A.C. (CeDeCoR) (Center for Community and Rural Development) - (non profit) Cd. Guzman, Jalisco 49000 MEXICO e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
To Unsubscribe: Email firstname.lastname@example.org with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email email@example.com with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest".