Legitimacy in Social Theory

fresco wrote:

Aspects of Russell's paradox are certainly fun, and if nothing else show us that "meaning" transcends "logic".

Answering questions can be fun too. You should try it sometime.

0 Replies

Okay Joe "try" this. :wink:

"That" was a statement within a particular communicative context about the status of "science". Consensus for "that" was cited in references above such as Kuhn within which lie the nauances of meaning of "consensus". I might have cited Bateson and the Santiago group who would go even further with a view that all "words" including "truth" are merely co-ordinators of action including the production of more linguistic acts.

From my experience of our former communicative engagements I made the assumption, based for example on your your dismissal of Bohr's views on QM, that your "question" is nothing to do with the focal context (the status of science) but more to do with your love of rhetoric.
My "answer" was therefore entirely appropriate.

0 Replies

One really needs to see the weary wintry smile and the narrow eyed gaze over the spectacles to assimilate the full meaning of that.

0 Replies

Spendius

In Internet communication we lose so very much that is part of face-to-face communication. We tap out coded messages between cells in our prison dungeon.

0 Replies

Chuck-

You have just confessed what I suspected.That you feel restricted.
Stone walls do not a prison make
Nor iron bars a cage. Eh?

I don't feel myself in a dungeon.

To effect your escape we need to know where the keys are kept and where the watchtowers are located.

The point of Gulliver's Travels,it seems to me,is that it is the number of restraining strings that are the problem, each of which is easily broken singly.

0 Replies

Quote:

The point of Gulliver's Travels,it seems to me,is that it is the number of restraining strings that are the problem, each of which is easily broken singly.

I believe these restraining strings are what buddhism calls attatchment. There is only one consequence of attatchment, and it is inevitable. It is misery.

The irony is that the western man, due to his misconceptions, does not feel free without his attatchments, without his cage. Without his car he feels trapped and restrained, and without his phone he feels isolated. All miseries that come from the inevitable loss of the things we attatch ourselves to.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

Okay Joe "try" this. :wink:

"That" was a statement within a particular communicative context about the status of "science". Consensus for "that" was cited in references above such as Kuhn within which lie the nauances of meaning of "consensus". I might have cited Bateson and the Santiago group who would go even further with a view that all "words" including "truth" are merely co-ordinators of action including the production of more linguistic acts.

Fine, that more directly responds to my question.

fresco wrote:

From my experience of our former communicative engagements I made the assumption, based for example on your your dismissal of Bohr's views on QM, that your "question" is nothing to do with the focal context (the status of science) but more to do with your love of rhetoric.
My "answer" was therefore entirely appropriate.

I never dismissed Bohr's views on quantum mechanics. Frankly, I don't know enough about QM to dismiss anyone's views of that subject. I did, however, question your attempt to reconcile Bohr's views on QM with your views on non-dualism. That doesn't take any profound insights into QM, just an appreciation for the absurdity of your arguments.

0 Replies

Joe,

Google will reveal extensive discussion of Bohr and Nondualism including his adoption of the Yin Yang symbol as his coat of arms...and with respect to "truth" we might note with interest (or otherwise) his comment "A great truth is one whose opposite is also a great truth". Is this "absurd" or is this a call for a Hegelian nondualistic synthesis transcending thesis-antithesis ?

0 Replies

coberst

Lest you you should think we stray somewhat from your central issue I note that Soros refers to Bohr's associate Heisenberg in his concept of reflexitivity. Soros may or may not have been aware that the "uncertainty principle" (in which the observer affects the observed ) had already been considered in the social sciences under the label "the personal equation" where allowances were made for the idiosyncratic bias in gathering of observations. However by "allowances" there had in essence been no real break from the notion of "objectivity". This is understandable where the title "science" was sought for social analysis by modelling itself on the apparent objectivity in "natural science".

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

Joe,

Google will reveal extensive discussion of Bohr and Nondualism including his adoption of the Yin Yang symbol as his coat of arms...and with respect to "truth" we might note with interest (or otherwise) his comment "A great truth is one whose opposite is also a great truth". Is this "absurd" or is this a call for a Hegelian nondualistic synthesis transcending thesis-antithesis ?

No, it's nonsense.

0 Replies

Well-that's cleared that up then.

0 Replies

Spendius,

....and in the words of Neddy Seagoon, "Forward -with leather !"

0 Replies

fresco-

Don't you find it odd how people can assert that something is nonsense and furthermore believe it to be so on the strength of the aforesaid assertion when everything is nonsense anyway.

Do you know anybody in the movie business who would fancy a remake of 1984 with the ex-minister of work and pensions as big brother?

0 Replies

Spendius,

I'll have to consult Cantor on "embedded nonsense"

A blind "Big Brother is Watching You" ?....sounds like Woody Allen territory !

0 Replies

Legitimacy in Social Theory

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know