Well I think Damien and others should take into account the user interface
requirements of their readers when attempting to "bridge the divide". I
mean, it's no good if it's so obfuscated (for the eggheads) that they can't
even understand it, or want to go to the trouble to do so. Speak more plainly
is my plea.
> In a message dated 1/1/01 11:02:27 PM Central Standard Time,
> email@example.com writes:
> > Damien Broderick wrote:
> > >
> > > We do not embrace either paradox or ordered structure for the
> > of it,
> > > though their embrace is zestful, but as a tool. A tool is used for a
> > A
> > > job is a practice in our twinned world: the empirical world of the Real,
> > > which is what we bark our shins on however we care to describe it, and
> > > symbolic world of culture and subjectivity. Knowing that we call upon
> > > paradox to do a job, or try to resolve what appears to be a paradox to
> > > a job done, emphasises the pragmatic dimension which is always part of
> > > analysis.
> > Damien, I cannot make out *what* the heck you are talking about. And
> > consider the source.
> Eliezer, I find this an interesting comment in light of a discussion that
> Barbara Lamar, Natasha and I have been having off-list regarding "the Two
> Cultures", i.e. the famous divide between the humanities and arts on the one
> hand and the cultural world of science and technology on the other. The
> passage from Damien's post you quote above is perfectly clear to me. Perhaps
> this is because of which side of the "Two Cultures" divide I come from.
> Having spent a lifetime in study of literature, philosophy and history, I am
> used to thinking in the terms with which Damien expresses himself here.
> In this passage Damien is expressing himself in terms of (really very slight)
> metaphor and analogy ("barking our shins"), two powerful tools in the kit of
> people who work on "our" side of the divide. Interestingly, and apropos of
> the discussion we've been having off-list, Damien is actually addressing the
> subject of the divide itself in this passage, i.e. he is talking about the
> interaction of the empirical world with which science and technology is
> concerned ("the Real") and the world of subjective experience which is the
> main object of works of "symbol and culture". Ironically, I think the point
> that Damien was making was that clever self-reference - which he took the
> solution to your riddle to be - is in fact corrosive of the value of
> grounding dialogue in the empirical world of barked shins and repeatable
> experiment. I think his larger point (the whole book from he quotes is
> making its way to the top of my list) is that a pragmatic judgment from
> utility in the empirical world ultimately drains the quagmire of self-doubt
> and self-reference to which so much of modern "culture" has been reduced by
> the practice of post-modernist "deconstruction". Ultimately, Damien is
> working to bridge the chasm between "the Two Cultures". So I think you
> should try again to make out what he's talking about.
> Greg Burch <GBurch1@aol.com>----<firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Attorney ::: Vice President, Extropy Institute ::: Wilderness Guide
> http://users.aol.com/gburch1 -or- http://members.aol.com/gburch1
> ICQ # 61112550
> "We never stop investigating. We are never satisfied that we know
> enough to get by. Every question we answer leads on to another
> question. This has become the greatest survival trick of our species."
> -- Desmond Morris
-- Brian Atkins Director, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:16 MDT