Re: [epistemology] Epistemological Revolution (Georges)

[Antonio Rossin <rossin(at)tin.it>]

Relayed by antonio - just wanting to balance Georges' theses with

a well-founded antithesis, allowing the public some synthesizing as

well as democratic power of choice.

------------------------------------------------------

At 9:43 -0500 29-11-2005, Justin Sindorf wrote:

>  Georges
> (excerpt from http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/meta_epistemological_revolution.htm):
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Transitions may be
> revolutionary, when the old SPECIFIC DOMAIN will not give up and the
> new has to struggle for emancipation. Thus, we may refer to Middle Age
> as to the epoch of THEOLOGY, and to Renaissance as to OBJECTIVE
> SCIENCE revolution. Indeed, the theological Middle Age used all
> available social and political means to oppose the new scientific
> ideology. No prior period saw as many stakes, no one had more
> appearances of Middle Age than Renaissance. As a rule, the obsolete
> SPECIFIC DOMAIN comes to its apogee when it is still socially, but no
> more intellectually ruling. All established institutions are still
> founded upon obsolete principles, the new domain pervades via a few
> individuals such as Copernicus, Galileo, Keppler and Leonardo da
> Vinci, who are persecuted and sometimes murdered like Giordano Bruno;
> fanaticism and intolerance propagate themselves through the masses.
> The old domain seems to triumph just before abdicating. Finally
> OBJECTIVE SCIENCE won and established itself as the SPECIFIC_ DOMAIN
> of the epoch of Rationalism. Further transitions followed. The limited
> scope of this chapter forces us to skip them and to pass directly to
> the contemporary situation. As we have said above, Logic is the last
> officially established domain.
>
>
> Justin:
>   For the last
> time, if one has reviewed ones history correctly, Bruno was burned at
> the stake because he refused to stop teaching, what was at that time
> merely theoretical, as an undisputible fact.  He was given
> chances to cease this practice until more could be learned but
> refused.  I know this doesn't fit as well into your work, but
> this is not masturbation. 
>    Why would
> we charachterize the Renaissance as an Objective Science revolution? 
> I would say more deserving of that title is the French Revolution,
> with Voltaire, Rousseau, and even de Sade, we see here a socialist
> reform that lifts the clouds of strict church dogmatism that allowed
> for Objective Science to freely investigate. 
> --------------------------------------------------
> Hegelian Dialectic
>
> 1.  How did Hegel's synthesis
> anticipate particularly brutal social reform(as seems to be indicative
> of your claim)?
> 2.  Isn't Voltaire's 'social
> contract', and Marx and Engels Communist Manifesto likely more
> responsible for the Gulags mentioned?
> 3.  In the social praxis how did
> Hegel's 'reason' found idealogies of Lenin, Mao, and
> Hitler?
> 4.  Who then is responsible for
> Stalin?  Robespierre?
>
>
> Georges (excerpt from http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/meta_epistemological_revolution.htm)
>
> Contrarily to this
> established opinion it is our thesis that: WE LIVE CURRENTLY AMID THE
> EPISTEMOLOGICAL REVOLUTION. According to our definition this means
> that EPISTEMOLOGY became unofficially the SPECIFIC DOMAIN of our time,
> that the social, scientific and technological development have
> revealed new aspects of existence which cannot be even formulated, let
> alone solved with help of absolute "Logic", but require some
> other more conform context. This context, the Applied EPISTEMOLOGY,
> or, as Einstein called it the New Manner of Thinking (NMT), has
> already been conceived by him while defining Relativity Theories and
> is locally applied by small intellectual elite in chosen, deepest,
> scientific domains, mainly in Physics. However, it's applied there
> implicitly, without ever having been formulated as an autonomous
> Inferencing System.
>
>   
> Justin:
> Einstein's NMT was in direct response to what he indirectly caused and
> did not think human kind was responsible enough for at that time,
> namely atomic weapons.  This NMT is a plea to this exact
> problem.  This doesn't mean that we have to turn epistemology on
> its head, or somehow replace what existed absolutely in a universal
> way.  Einstein also burned a lot of his later works that we will
> never see, he simply thought the world was not ready for them. 
> This NMT is not to be understood as a universal swipe across the board
> of all cognition.  If we take this NMT warning the way you seem
> to propose we are then able to call Einstein a Rousseau, and a Hegel
> as well.  Robespierre, Hitler, and Mao (contingently), and
> Georges?  It seems each one of the former has been misunderstood
> by the latter, and idolized into their own existent Daseiness. 
> Because Einstein was a physicist you seem to take that as a cue that
> somehow he meant that physics was the right 'Domain' for the mantle of
> epistemology exclusively.  I don't
> follow. 
>     Do
> relativity theories somehow extend into the social life?  That is
> to say because I don't see the same time you do on a clock tower
> because I am further away from it than you, and it takes the light
> longer to travel to me with information that is not actual, do we now
> carry this connotation into the world as some plight against the
> ordered social life?  It seems to be implied in your statements,
> perhaps that's my own problem though.
>
> Georges:
> Unlike Physics, the
> critical problems of human and social praxis such as demography,
> ecology or globalization cannot be simplified by mathematical
> formalisms and require explicit Inferencing structures to be
> formulated, not to mention to be processed and, hopefully, solved. In
> other terms, human and social praxis require extension of the NMT,
> inherent in current Physics, over the whole human Universe of
> Discourse, as well as its definition as an autonomous Inferencing
> System.
>
> Justin:
>   This is true to a point. 
> Formal logic has no power in demography, ecology, or globalization. 
> Here though you have defeated yourself.  How can physics solve
> the worlds ills?  The NMT was merely an instruction guide, or
> suggestion to the new power, and discipline Einstein was instrumental
> in bringing about that is all the further it goes.  You have
> taken it as a universal implication, which I would like to
> understand how that is done.  Don't get confused because of the
> levity of Einsteins discoveries, and Relativity theories, the content
> of induction you are asking us to swallow has not been properly
> grounded yet by you, e.g. a castle in the air.
>   I look forward to you tackling these questions.
>
>
> Best regards,
> Justin
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Georges
> > Metanomski
> > To: epistemology(at)yahoogroups.com ; workshop_fg(at)yahoogroups.com ; wddm@world-wide-democracy.net ; cicdd(at)yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 8:38
> > AM
> > Subject: [epistemology] Epistemological Revolution
> > (Jud et Al)
> >
> > This is first to thank Jud for his hard work in
> > updating
> > our sites and, second, to tell Everybody that the chapter
> > "Epistemological Revolution"
> > has been updated in the old site
> > http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/metanomskiindex.htm
> >
> > and inserted into the new
> > http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/metanomski_new_indexhtm
> >
> > Comments welcome
> >
> > Georges