Roberto Verzola posted:
DH> >>>I sincerely think BD would do best to ground their claims in
DH> >>>measurable units. Otherwise, we're just talking about preferences,
DH> >>>and anyone can be emphatic. Defining the results as well as possible
DH> >>>would be more likely to induce anyone interested to try it on his or
DH> >>>her own.
> >HL> Point well taken, Douglas. Myself I'm not too sure what measurable
> >HL> units to ground things with. What we are dealing with here are
> >HL> holistic systems. Patterns. Any tiny fragment of one of these
> >HL> holistic patterns reflects the entire pattern.
DH> >Well I was never aware of any measurable results from those things (as
DH> >mentioned), and measurable results simply means that 1).- they can be
DH> >repeated, and 2).- a pattern can be discerned and presented (that's
DH> >the knowing where to look for it part). Then you can measure it.
RV>We're getting philosophical here, but maybe this is the right time to
RV>do so... You might want to expand your conception of reality beyond
RV>those phenomena which can be measured. "If I can't measure it, it
RV>isn't real" one of the foundations of reductionist science which is
RV>currently under question.
RV>Don't you think it is possible to perceive realities qualitatively
RV>instead of quantitatively?
What I'm talking about certainly is the qualitative rather than the
quantitative. I'm talking about looking at things in context rather than
viewing them as isolates. I realize that our culture has it hammered home
that quality and context are "subjective" and somehow that is invalid.
Meanwhile measurement of physical parameters without reference to context
is "objective" and somehow that is all that is valid.
It is that old nusiance, dualism, rearing its ugly head. Kant said that the
only means of knowing a thing is real is to apprehend it with the five
senses. I still don't know how he sold that one to virtually everyone, but
he did. This means that inspiration, purpose, values--even past and
future--all are not real. Bah!
This takes me back to my early Catholic Catechism days where we were
drilled on the proposition that God is everywhere and in all things, but
not in You, sinner! How can this be? How can "subjective" be NOT real while
"objective" IS? Inspiration, purpose, values, history and destiny are some
of the most real things we experience. These are the movers behind all we
do in the physical universe. Talk about five senses? These five are what
make the information of the senses sensIBLE. Without them nothing MAKES
Forgive me all you knee-jerk dualists, please. I am a monist. In my life
subjective and objective are one. I walk along and, voila! There is a six
leaf clover! I saw it because first of all I had the concept and then the
percept. Someone else walks along and sees a penny on the ground at the
same location, but would never see the six leaf clover in a dozen years.
This is not a purely objective reality we share. It is, rather, a reality
where objective and subjective are conjoined. I never bought what they were
selling in Catechism Class as I couldn't see how God could be everywhere
and in all things without also being in me and verily in my every thought.
Having said that let me hasten to validate Douglas' search for specificity.
If the subjective is really conjoined with the objective then his desires
can be met. For sure they can be. Here is part of another exchange between
Douglas and myself:
>>HL> And since these patterns are dynamic and furthermore are organized
>>HL> into systems of systems of systems, etc. of dynamic patterns it
>>HL> doesn't make much sense to pull isolated measures out of this
DH>>Sorry Hugh, that's overly general in my book. I think you're painting
DH>>yourself into a corner by losing the specificity, the diversity. What
DH>>you want to do is *define* those dynamic patterns, systems of systems
DH>>etc., not simply label them as such. There's no progress in that, and
DH>>progress does matter, just as time does. We're going somewhere, and I
DH>>don't feel like I'm in the back seat, or just an observer.
HL>Nothing wrong with wanting specificity here. Try to realize that I have
to gloss over some things just to get a post like this down and mailed in
HL>To go from quantum mechanics at the atomic level to the level of amino
acids organizing into proteins, to the level of DNA and RNA and their
replication, to the level of alleles and genes, to chromosomes, to cells,
to tissues, to organs, to individuals of a species, to phyla, etc. ? That's
a bit more work. But you want the specificity spelled out? Okay. You want
to use your own imagination and dream about what I might mean by my vague
generalities? That's okay too. I HAVE thought about this stuff. But
needless to say I wouldn't want to deprive you of the opportunity to do a
bit of your own thinking too.
So from my point of view I don't have much of a problem with the specificty
and measurement of things. That can all be accomplished, though as the
things under discussion become more and more subtle the difficulties of
specific measurement can outstrip present means. Wait a bit, however, and
some method of measurement is likely to turn up--not that I think it likely
we will ever be able to measure the whole context and pin down quality to
our specimen board the way we do quantity. But measurement is a perfectly
valid way of looking at things. I use it all the time. Great stuff! What I
have trouble with is the folks who would enforce the belief that
measurement is the ONLY valid way of looking at things. What bilge!
Thanks for bringing this up.
To Unsubscribe: Email email@example.com with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
To Subscribe to Digest: Email firstname.lastname@example.org with the command
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Apr 05 2000 - 20:00:37 EDT