From: L-Soft list server at St. John's University (1.8c) To: Ian Pitchford Subject: File: "SCI-CULT LOG9701" Date: Sunday, September 27, 1998 10:18 AM ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Jan 1997 13:06:37 +0000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: C A Wardell Subject: Re: S-a-C In-Reply-To: <9612291115.aa17540@mary.bath.ac.uk> Is anyone else as fed up with this childish intellectual posturing as I am? On Sun, 29 Dec 1996, Arie Dirkzwager wrote: > >AND I was the > >*only* one in a class of 350 at The University of Michigan (the 3rd > >ranking University in the US) to get an A on the Astronomy final exam, > >so there! > > And I did my Ph.D. psychology "Cum Laude" ;-) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Jan 1997 12:39:04 -0500 Reply-To: jungsoul@vgernet.net Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Michelle Christides Subject: Re: S-a-C -- was a private message that got posted by mistake. Dear C. A. Wardell, I am very embarassed that this private message between Arie and me was posted by mistake. We were joking around and as a "non-scientist" I was telling him I had studied the basics Science, as well as the literature. I offer my apologies to you and to the list. It had to do with servers being down and messages getting re-addressed, etc. Michelle Christides C A Wardell wrote: > > Is anyone else as fed up with this childish intellectual posturing as I > am? > > On Sun, 29 Dec 1996, Arie Dirkzwager wrote: > > > >AND I was the > > >*only* one in a class of 350 at The University of Michigan (the 3rd > > >ranking University in the US) to get an A on the Astronomy final exam, > > >so there! > > > > And I did my Ph.D. psychology "Cum Laude" ;-) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Jan 1997 19:08:26 +0100 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Arie Dirkzwager Subject: Re: S-a-C At 13:06 2-01-97 +0000, C A Wardell wrote: >Is anyone else as fed up with this childish intellectual posturing as I >am? Yes I am - it was just a joke in a serious (and, sorry for that, quite lengthy) scientific discussion mr(s?) Wardell probably didn't understand. Reply to the real thing if you can and don't pollute this list with irrelevant quotes and pedantic "comments". When you are "fed up" with discourse that is beyond you, just skip it. Arie >On Sun, 29 Dec 1996, Arie Dirkzwager wrote: > >> >AND I was the >> >*only* one in a class of 350 at The University of Michigan (the 3rd >> >ranking University in the US) to get an A on the Astronomy final exam, >> >so there! >> >> And I did my Ph.D. psychology "Cum Laude" ;-) > > ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 00:33:41 -0800 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: H-NEXA Editor Michael Gregory Subject: Re: H-NEXA Digest - 30 Dec 1996 to 31 Dec 1996 X-To: "H-NEXA: the Science-Humanities Convergence Forum" X-cc: aried@xs4all.nl Date: Thu, 02 Jan 1997 19:21:26 -0500 From: Michelle Christides Dear J.D.H. Amador, I shall take the liberty of giving you a first-response to your question, since I've just received a message from Arie that it's midnight and he's off to bed in the Netherlands. > I'm very sorry to interrupt the discussion between Arie and Michelle, but I > wonder if I can throw out a quick question, just to see what happens. > > >Religion is the subjective side of the relation between the Creator and the > created > > (i.c. the human being). > This was Arie's definition of the word "religion" -- I was calling for a "21st century" *new* definition. We have since been corresponding for two days to see where we are in our respective positions, before we get our act together and take this show on the road -- we thought we had been frolicking in an empty Forum for Christmas! > What would happen to this discussion if I were to suggest that religion is > *not* a subjective experience of the sublime/divine, but is instead a social > construct by which people work out issues of ethics (inner-group interaction > and inter-group interaction), natural disasters (their 'origins' and > 'purposes'), social teleology (what is the purpose of our (*not* just *my*) > existence), social structure, politics, etc.? Absolutely agree with you -- this is the "objective side" that the 21st century definition of the word religion should "tie together" (the actual etymological meaning of Latin 'religio') with the "subjective side." Then the problem is to define this inner world of the psyche, with respect to the *'tying together' function* of this inner reality with the outer reality. The *function* itself will then be defined for the 21st century meaning of "religion." Then, whatever Durkheim or anybody else has to say ought to be encompassed by this definition, not simply aspects of this larger concept, such as 'religions as they have been practiced, or religions as social constructs, or religions as doctrines.' > While I don't pretend to understand this current discussion at all, would the > issues of the presence of religious idioms, ideology, rhetoric, > Weltanschauung, etc. transform the discussion if we took a > social-functionalist rather than subjectivist view of religion? Again, thank you for your interest and your helping to clarify where Arie and I have taken off-line way off down the road . . .;-) A social-functionalist view would be the objective side, and religion, must tie it together with the subjective side. The 'body-mind' split is the source of the problem in Western culture in particular -- all our education is transmitted with this inherent subjective-objective split in epistemology. Would it > help us garner more insight into the relationship between religion and the > assumptions/foundations/methods/apologetics of harder, hard, and social > sciences, esp. with respect to this particular discussion? What new insights > could we develop in epistemology, ontology, and psychology if 'religion' as a > concept were seen not as an individual experience, but a social construct > with a lengthy and profoundly influential discourse (political, economic, > ethical) tradition in a given culture, particularly our own. > > Just a thought... > J.D.H. Amador > Santa Rosa J.C. Ah! A wonderful one! Yes, that would give us the profound insight into the objective construct of religion that we must mirror by an equivalent depth into the subjective side, which is what Depth Psychology for me is all about. I have come from the tradition of the Social Sciences/Literature myself, and I have this 'political, economic & ethical' tradition in Western Civilization as my springboard into the understanding of Depth Psychology. I speak for myself, of course, in saying that I would be delighted to have you contribute to the discussion Arie and I are developing, when we begin to release it to the Forum (Science-as-Culture). Now my consuming interest lies in what subjective reality in the psyche of the human species accounts for the evolution of certain cultural forms we have come to know (love & hate) as Western Civilization. Perhaps our esteemed editor of H-NEXA can suggest whether we should abandon S-a-C as the Forum for this, in favor of H-NEXA, or whether we should beard the scientist-lions in their den? :-) {I'm being careful to put in my smileys, they haven't much humor!) Mike, don't you dare post this on S-a-C! At least until Arie wakes up! And then, take out that last sentence! Michelle > > [Ed.: If I remember correctly, this theory of religion as a function of > cultural values was first out forward by Emile Durkheim, the father of > French sociology. -MG] [Ed.: Presumably Arie is now ambulatory. I am posting this on both lists because your discussion is now intercontinental as well as interdisciplinary. If you three wish to post on H-NEXA, that's fine. I have a feeling each of you is talking about a part of something that is indeed whole -- the blind men and the elephant motif from Indian folklore. Religion, science, culture -- inner, outer, culturally derived canons of cognitive imperatives -- each a way of knowing, but partial. Why not collaborate on a unified field theory of human experience? Anyway, the stately pavanne continues. -MG] ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 13:50:37 +0000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: C A Wardell Subject: Re: S-a-C In-Reply-To: <9701021824.ab02917@mary.bath.ac.uk> On Thu, 2 Jan 1997, Arie Dirkzwager wrote: > At 13:06 2-01-97 +0000, C A Wardell wrote: > >Is anyone else as fed up with this childish intellectual posturing as I > >am? > > Yes I am - it was just a joke in a serious (and, sorry for that, > quite lengthy) scientific discussion mr(s?) Wardell probably didn't > understand. Reply to the real thing if you can and don't pollute this list > with irrelevant quotes and pedantic "comments". When you are "fed up" with > discourse that is beyond you, just skip it. > > Arie See what I mean? Claire ************************************************************************** C.A.Wardell@bath.ac.uk - School of Social Sciences - Bath University - Claverton Down - Bath - England - BA2 7AY - Tel: 01225 826826 x5043 - Fax: 01225 826381 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 14:53:58 +0100 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Arie Dirkzwager Subject: Re: S-a-C At the risk of starting a flame a short reply: At 13:20 2-01-97 -0500, J.R. Reber wrote: (after my reply to C A Wardells accusation of "childish intellectual posturing") >I do not see the utility of Arie's nasty and grandiose posting.I would >prefer not to have Arie establish rules such as "just skip it," You misunderstood: no "rules", just an advice. Many things on many lists I subscribed to are "beyond me" so I can't reasonably react and "skip" them (often I'm also learning from them). >and his >judgment about what is polluting the list is debatable at best. Sorry, just my opinion, beware me: no topic for "debate"! >The only >thing I've found to be "beyond" me is the origins of such coarseness. I would appreciate it very much if you would reply to all these other things that were not "beyond you" instead of being concerned about my assumed "coarseness". I propose to return to our serious scientific discussions in which I pointed to the importance of good, valid concepts ('96/24/12, subject: Concepts, was: genes, mind, teleology) and to which Michelle Christides had very sensible comments (quoted in my message of '96/12/29 Re: S-a-C). And let's PLEASE forget about words like "childish", "posturing", "nasty", "grandiose", and "coarseness" in learned discourse. Arie ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 17:06:02 +0100 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Arie Dirkzwager Subject: Re: H-NEXA Digest - 30 Dec 1996 to 31 Dec 1996 At 00:33 3-01-97 -0800, you wrote: >Date: Thu, 02 Jan 1997 19:21:26 -0500 >From: Michelle Christides > >Dear J.D.H. Amador, > >I shall take the liberty of giving you a first-response to your >question, since I've just received a message from Arie that it's >midnight and he's off to bed in the Netherlands. Could I get the original message of mr(s?) Amador on this list, that I may reply? (I did get only copies of Michelle's reply to it) Thanks, Arie ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 13:00:13 -0800 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: H-NEXA Editor Michael Gregory Subject: Re: H-NEXA Digest - 30 Dec 1996 to 31 Dec 1996 Here you go, Arie, and welcome to H-NEXA, the calm in the eye of the storm! -- Michael Gregory, ed. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From: TheVoidBoy@aol.com Date: Thu, 2 Jan 1997 17:04:51 -0500 I'm very sorry to interrupt the discussion between Aire and Michelle, but I wonder if I can throw out a quick question, just to see what happens. >Religion is the subjective side of the relation between the Creator and the created > (i.c. the human being). What would happen to this discussion if I were to suggest that religion is *not* a subjective experience of the sublime/divine, but is instead a social construct by which people work out issues of ethics (inner-group interaction and inter-group interaction), natural disasters (their 'origins' and 'purposes'), social teleology (what is the purpose of our (*not* just *my*) existence), social structure, politics, etc.? While I don't pretend to understand this current discussion at all, would the issues of the presence of religious idioms, ideology, rhetoric, Weltanshauung, etc. transform the discussion if we took a social-functionalist rather than subjectivist view of religion? Would it help us garner more insight into the relationship between religion and the assumptions/foundations/methods/apologetics of harder, hard, and social sciences, esp. with respect to this particular discussion? What new insights could we develop in epistemology, ontology, and psychology if 'religion' as a concept were seen not as an individual experience, but a social construct with a lengthy and profoundly influential discourse (political, economic, ethical) tradition in a given culture, particularly our own. Just a thought... J.D.H. Amador Santa Rosa J.C. At 05:06 PM 1/3/97 +0100, you wrote: >At 00:33 3-01-97 -0800, you wrote: >>Date: Thu, 02 Jan 1997 19:21:26 -0500 >>From: Michelle Christides >> >>Dear J.D.H. Amador, >> >>I shall take the liberty of giving you a first-response to your >>question, since I've just received a message from Arie that it's >>midnight and he's off to bed in the Netherlands. > > Could I get the original message of mr(s?) Amador on this list, that >I may reply? (I did get only copies of Michelle's reply to it) >Thanks, >Arie > > ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 00:33:31 -0600 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: RCG Subject: Re: H-NEXA Digest - 30 Dec 1996 to 31 Dec 1996 >> What would happen to this discussion if I were to suggest that religion is >> *not* a subjective experience of the sublime/divine, but is instead a social >> construct by which people work out issues of ethics (inner-group interaction >> and inter-group interaction), natural disasters (their 'origins' and >> 'purposes'), social teleology (what is the purpose of our (*not* just *my*) >> existence), social structure, politics, etc.? I agree also, but I would like to add without insulting anybody. Might religion be also a solution to the fears of the unknown and a way to control it? Just wondering? Rosalina ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 12:58:27 +0100 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Herbert Mehrtens Subject: religion as construct >>> What would happen to this discussion if I were to suggest that religion is >>> *not* a subjective experience of the sublime/divine, but is instead a social >>> construct by which people work out issues of ethics just a few remarks: To learn something one might turn to the analysis of myths (and read Levi-Strauss, Roland Barthes (Mythologies), Mary Douglas (purity and taboo)). Then try to identify the mythical elements in science (like the 'Big Bang', or nature's "language") and see how they relate mutually reinforcing to other myths, so that science indeed has a quasi-religious function. (The 'quasi' because I propose to take 'religion' as a very specific form of social structuration (that term is Anthony Giddens') with a dense set of myths as the organizing center. I just happened to read Gillian Beer: 'the Death of the Sun': Victorian Solar Physics and Solar Myths. in J.B. Bullen (ed.): The Sun is God. Oxford CClarendon, 1989, 159-180. An excellent piece on physics, myth, and religion, in which she, by the way, argues that the success of Darwins last book on the earthworm results from the consoling myth of that humble creature as unchangingly productive. Another observation I made at a conference last year was that physicists, when asked why they were so interested in other forms of life in the universe or in the origin of the universe, answered frequently in the way: I would feel uncomfortable..., I would be happy.... Comfort and happiness! Religion? Herbert ******************************* Prof. Dr. Herbert Mehrtens Technische Universitaet Historisches Seminar Schleinitzstr. 13 D-38106 Braunschweig GERMANY Tel.: 0531 - 391 3080 / -3091 Fax: 0531 - 391 8162 email: h.mehrtens@tu-bs.de ********************************* ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 13:22:48 +0100 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Arie Dirkzwager Subject: Re: H-NEXA Digest - 30 Dec 1996 to 31 Dec 1996 At 13:00 3-01-97 -0800, Mr(s?) J.D.H. Amador wrote: >From: TheVoidBoy@aol.com >Date: Thu, 2 Jan 1997 17:04:51 -0500 > >I'm very sorry to interrupt the discussion between Aire and Michelle, but I >wonder if I can throw out a quick question, just to see what happens. > >>Religion is the subjective side of the relation between the Creator and the >created >> (i.c. the human being). > >What would happen to this discussion if I were to suggest that religion is >*not* a subjective experience of the sublime/divine, but is instead a social >construct by which people work out issues of ethics (inner-group interaction >and inter-group interaction), natural disasters (their 'origins' and >'purposes'), social teleology (what is the purpose of our (*not* just *my*) >existence), social structure, politics, etc.? As far as I'm concerned what would happen is a discussion on the *social aspects* of religion, on the relation between the social aspect (the functioning of society) and the ethical aspect (concerning ethics), where the "social process" is the foundation for the emergence of ethical values, that are NOT socially "qualified" but have their own "laws". I would add that these ethical values and their emergence are "steered by" the highest aspect: the pisteutic (answering the basic question to what "god" -be it the hman person or economic progress (money) or human ratio or technological power or, as I prefer, God, the Creator of the whole universe with all its aspects, a.o. the physical, psychic, social, ethic and pisteutic aspect- one puts his faith and by what "god" one has his/her thinking and acting be determined). I would add that this would only be a shift from the psychological aspect of "religion" ("subjective experience") to the social aspect distracting attention from what true religion is: the relation (alliance, union) between "a" "god" and man(kind), which is basic to the subjective functioning of the individual in ALL aspect of reality. Based upon the philosophy of H. Dooyeweerd (his book: "A New Critique of Theoretical Thought") - when you are interested I can expand on that and we may discuss it. >While I don't pretend to understand this current discussion at all, would the >issues of the presence of religious idioms, ideology, rhetoric, >Weltanshauung, etc. transform the discussion if we took a >social-functionalist rather than subjectivist view of religion? Would it >help us garner more insight into the relationship between religion and the >assumptions/foundations/methods/apologetics of harder, hard, and social >sciences, esp. with respect to this particular discussion? Sure! As far as I'm concerned: Dooyeweerd has an interesting systemic view on the relations between the different ("hard" to "soft", social and "higher") sciences and their relation to religion. >What new insights >could we develop in epistemology, ontology, and psychology if 'religion' as >a >concept were seen not as an individual experience, but a social construct >with a lengthy and profoundly influential discourse (political, economic, >ethical) tradition in a given culture, particularly our own. I think we have already many of those "new" insights (didn't Durkheim start this trend?). I think of religion as quite comprehensive, not just "individual experience" OR "social construct", with many modalities or aspects that can be studied by (as many) different sciences, with philosophy as the umbrella covering and summarising it all in a comprehensive cognitive frame. Thanks for your inspiring contribution to this discussion, I'm looking forward for your reaction and comment! Arie ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 13:23:00 +0100 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Arie Dirkzwager Subject: Re: H-NEXA Digest - 30 Dec 1996 to 31 Dec 1996 At 00:33 4-01-97 -0600, Rosalina wrote: >>> What would happen to this discussion if I were to suggest that religion is >>> *not* a subjective experience of the sublime/divine, but is instead a social >>> construct by which people work out issues of ethics (inner-group interaction >>> and inter-group interaction), natural disasters (their 'origins' and >>> 'purposes'), social teleology (what is the purpose of our (*not* just *my*) >>> existence), social structure, politics, etc.? > >I agree also, but I would like to add without insulting anybody. Might >religion be also a solution to the fears of the unknown and a way to control >it? Just wondering? "Control" the unknown??? (IMHO: false) religion might give the illusion of "control" and thus reduce (subjective) fear, but (again IMHO) *true* religion gives a reasonable ground for having faith and trust that, notwithstanding all our failing (technological) controlling (did you ever imagine what will happen when we don't solve the famous "year 2000 problem" in many of the current computer programs?), there is no reason to fear: we have a wonderful future when we are faithful! Arie PS. This is NOT meant as a contribution to our learned discourse on "religion"! ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 13:45:49 +0100 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Arie Dirkzwager Subject: Re: religion as construct At 12:58 4-01-97 +0100, Herbert Mehrtens wrote: >>>> What would happen to this discussion if I were to suggest that religion is >>>> *not* a subjective experience of the sublime/divine, but is instead a social >>>> construct by which people work out issues of ethics > >just a few remarks: > >To learn something one might turn to the analysis of myths (and read >Levi-Strauss, Roland Barthes (Mythologies), Mary Douglas (purity and >taboo)). Then try to identify the mythical elements in science (like the >'Big Bang', or nature's "language") and see how they relate mutually >reinforcing to other myths, so that science indeed has a quasi-religious >function. (The 'quasi' because I propose to take 'religion' as a very >specific form of social structuration (that term is Anthony Giddens') with a >dense set of myths as the organizing center. Dear Herbert, I value your contribution highly: I think you point to the right methodology. I agree that, *within the realm of SOCIAL science* religion is indeed a "specific form of ...", but I would add that that is only one *aspect* of religion that get it's specific meaning from the realm of faith and trust that lead to specific "cults". I may add also that myths themselves are also historical social "constructs" (structurations) with their own specific meaning. As for "constructs" I may add that they *might* be "wrong". As an example: we constructed in Rotterdam a wonderful, beautiful new bridge, the "Erasmus bridge" of which we are very proud and which was opened by queen Beatrix with large festivities. However a month later it started swaying in the storm and rain and it had to be closed and patched up. This is a story (modern "myth"?) I thought as funny as the biblical Babel story on human hubris in the face of God. With which I don't mean we should stop ambitious constructing and structuring: we can and should humbly and in good faith "the bridge will sway but not fall down" (although literally such things happen also, unfortunately). This "good faith"-aspect of religion can be discussed too, it is a quite different aspect from the subjective-psychological or the social aspects IMHO. Best regards, Arie ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 09:20:35 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Fred Abraham Subject: Re: H-NEXA Digest - 30 Dec 1996 to 31 Dec 1996 Rosalina raises an interesting point here. I have written on this problem myself from the perspective of motivation for creativity (in Sulis & Combs book just out on Chaos Theory in Psychology), where I take up the existential issues of the balance between existential anst and existential equanimity or curiosity as moving forces in creativity. I presume most of the participants in this discussion (I just joined the listserver so have only skimmed the latest digest on this religious thread) are familiar with Tillich and May and other religious and psychological existentialist. Some of my more recent inquiries into this area (I am just a beginner) have found the theme of fear as common to mythology and science. In particular, I am struck by the black writing of Horkheimer and Adorno "Dialectic of the Enlightment", Habermas' lecture on this piece, and related work. Are others more familiar with these? H&A point to some quotes of Bacon on fear and control, and point out that mythology before the Greek Enlightment were similarly motivated. I hold that joy and curiosity also motivate, but I see that angst and joy are opposites that are united. Such union of opposites are cental to the thinking of many choas theorists, such as Hector Sabelli, who also combines them with religious inquiry (he has a book on the Union of Opposites, and a play in simultaeous Spanish and English on Mary, mother of Jusus, that combines chaos, humanitarian religion and creativity, and political action. Fred Abraham >>> What would happen to this discussion if I were to suggest that religion is >>> *not* a subjective experience of the sublime/divine, but is instead a social >>> construct by which people work out issues of ethics (inner-group interaction >>> and inter-group interaction), natural disasters (their 'origins' and >>> 'purposes'), social teleology (what is the purpose of our (*not* just *my*) >>> existence), social structure, politics, etc.? > >I agree also, but I would like to add without insulting anybody. Might >religion be also a solution to the fears of the unknown and a way to control >it? Just wondering? > >Rosalina > > Priscilla Magdamo-Abraham & Frederick David Abraham R1 Box 2080 Gregg Hill Waterbury Center VT 05677 USA 802 244-8104 Tel 802 244-1508 Fax abraham@sover.net http://www.pacweb.com/blueberry/ ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 10:58:50 -0500 Reply-To: bradmcc@cloud9.net Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Brad McCormick, Ed.D." Organization: AbiCo. Subject: Re: religion as construct Arie Dirkzwager wrote: > > At 12:58 4-01-97 +0100, Herbert Mehrtens wrote: > >>>> What would happen to this discussion if I were to suggest that religion is > >>>> *not* a subjective experience of the sublime/divine, but is instead a > social > >>>> construct by which people work out issues of ethics > > > >just a few remarks: > > [snip] > As an example: we constructed in Rotterdam a wonderful, > beautiful new bridge, the "Erasmus bridge" of which we are very proud and > which was opened by queen Beatrix with large festivities. However a month > later it started swaying in the storm and rain and it had to be closed and > patched up. This is a story (modern "myth"?) I thought as funny as the > biblical Babel story on human hubris in the face of God. [snip] This is one of my pet peeves: There was nothing hubristic about the aspirations of the Babel-onians, except that they underestimated the paranoia of their God. The Babel-onians did not want to usurp God's position in the Cosmos, but only to "make a name for themselves", i.e., to enter as peers with Him in universal discourse. This is, of course, quite different from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers thinking they can manage the global ecosystem by building dams, etc., which *is* hubristic. The Babel-onians, unlike the Corps of Engineers, did not aspire to *control everything*, but rather to attain to the dignity of interlocutors in the universal network of discourse among all sapient beings, in which God, however much more *powerful* than they, would participate as only another perspective, offering His views, and listening carefully to the criticisms of the others, who would be His equal not in *strength* but in reflective, self- accountable thought and expression (sort of like Atilla the Hun(sp?) talking with Stephen Hawking(sp?)). It is obvious that God can destroy people. What's the big deal, or the great virtue in that? But if He restrains Himself, and speaks with us in ways which let us be, He (as well as we) just might learn something and even find some companionship.... -- Mankind is not the master of all the stuff that exists, but Everyman (woman, child) is a judge of the world. Bradford McCormick, Ed.D. bradmcc@cloud9.net / (914)238-0788 27 Poillon Road, Chappaqua, NY 10514-3403 USA ---------------------------------------------- Visit my website ==> http://www.cloud9.net/~bradmcc ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 11:13:04 -0500 Reply-To: bradmcc@cloud9.net Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Brad McCormick, Ed.D." Organization: AbiCo. Subject: Re: H-NEXA Digest - 30 Dec 1996 to 31 Dec 1996 Fred Abraham wrote: > > Rosalina raises an interesting point here. [snip] > > >>> What would happen to this discussion if I were to suggest that religion is > >>> *not* a subjective experience of the sublime/divine, but is instead a social > >>> construct by which people work out issues of ethics (inner-group interaction > >>> and inter-group interaction), natural disasters (their 'origins' and > >>> 'purposes'), social teleology (what is the purpose of our (*not* just *my*) > >>> existence), social structure, politics, etc.? > > > >I agree also, but I would like to add without insulting anybody. Might > >religion be also a solution to the fears of the unknown and a way to control > >it? Just wondering? > > > >Rosalina [snip] Most discussion about religion seems to be people talking about things they have been told, rather than *experience*. If God talks to me, I will enter into conversation with Him. If He gives me an order and tells me I'd better obey, well, then, I probably won't try to enter into conversation with him, but (1) obey, and (2) think what a loathsome bully He is. Or, who knows, I might stand up to him and say: "No, God, I won't kill my son for you! That's wrong, and you need to think about what sort of person you are...." (which, of course, would likely send me to His Auschwitz or Lubyanka). But I think the point needs to be reiterated: If each person understands him or her self as an opening upon Being (etc.), then we must deal with whatever experience presents itself to us. So long as God does not enter into our lives, then we can only suspend judgment on His existence and qualities. And, if "He" does enter into our lives, we still need, not only to assess the encounter from an ethical perspective, but also check it out epistemologically, to see whether "He" might instead be Descartes' Great Deceiver, or a hallucinatory product of our own inner life, etc. IMO, St. Paul wasn't good for much, but he did say one thing which I feel (in the tradition of Unitarianism) is very wise: "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." Check out everything which presents itself to us. Cultivate the good things. And try to keep the rest from hurting us. -- Mankind is not the master of all the stuff that exists, but Everyman (woman, child) is a judge of the world. Bradford McCormick, Ed.D. bradmcc@cloud9.net / (914)238-0788 27 Poillon Road, Chappaqua, NY 10514-3403 USA ---------------------------------------------- Visit my website ==> http://www.cloud9.net/~bradmcc ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 11:15:38 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Fred Abraham Subject: Re: religion as construct >>>> What would happen to this discussion if I were to suggest that religion is >>>> *not* a subjective experience of the sublime/divine, but is instead a social >>>> construct by which people work out issues of ethics > >just a few remarks: > >To learn something one might turn to the analysis of myths (and read >Levi-Strauss, Roland Barthes (Mythologies), Mary Douglas (purity and >taboo)). Then try to identify the mythical elements in science (like the >'Big Bang', or nature's "language") and see how they relate mutually >reinforcing to other myths, so that science indeed has a quasi-religious >function. (The 'quasi' because I propose to take 'religion' as a very >specific form of social structuration (that term is Anthony Giddens') with a >dense set of myths as the organizing center. I just spotted a ref to Lyotard's "Adorna come diavalo" which I haven't seen, an attack on the Frankfort school; mostly the French Deconstructionists and the Frankfort School seemed for a while to ignore each other, though had much in parallel. Barthes later work (The Semiotic Challange, 1988), according to my reference furthers the themes of subjective/objective (a focus of this thread) and fear/curiosity (Rosalina's concern) is extended. From Gane on Baudrillard: "Barthes noted carefylly the problem of defining the 'object': it is indeed 'somehting' but a something with two different groups of connotations. A first group, suggesting in the manner of Sartre or Ionescu, the radical, non-human qualities of objectgs which might be seen to htreaten the existence of man, or which might be seen as absurd or meaningless. These relations to the object are, said Barthes, essentially sugjective ones. ..." [Mike Gane: Baudrillard: Critical and Fatal Theory, Routledge, 1988, p. 35).] One could look at institutional religion, not only as Rosalina suggests, as motivated by fear of the unknown, but also exploiting fear, and as a Barthes type object, whose dehumanization can cause fear. I do not suggest that that is all that it is, but that as my previous message implied, that both fear and faith, or negative and positive feelings are balanced in an intricate choreaography. Thanks for these interesting looking references. > >I just happened to read Gillian Beer: 'the Death of the Sun': Victorian >Solar Physics and Solar Myths. in J.B. Bullen (ed.): The Sun is God. Oxford >CClarendon, 1989, 159-180. >An excellent piece on physics, myth, and religion, in which she, by the way, >argues that the success of Darwins last book on the earthworm results from >the consoling myth of that humble creature as unchangingly productive. >Another observation I made at a conference last year was that physicists, >when asked why they were so interested in other forms of life in the >universe or in the origin of the universe, answered frequently in the way: I >would feel uncomfortable..., I would be happy.... >Comfort and happiness! Religion? >Herbert >******************************* >Prof. Dr. Herbert Mehrtens >Technische Universitaet >Historisches Seminar >Schleinitzstr. 13 >D-38106 Braunschweig >GERMANY >Tel.: 0531 - 391 3080 / -3091 >Fax: 0531 - 391 8162 >email: h.mehrtens@tu-bs.de >********************************* > > Priscilla Magdamo-Abraham & Frederick David Abraham R1 Box 2080 Gregg Hill Waterbury Center VT 05677 USA 802 244-8104 Tel 802 244-1508 Fax abraham@sover.net http://www.pacweb.com/blueberry/ ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 20:20:53 +0100 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Arie Dirkzwager Subject: Re: religion as construct At 11:15 4-01-97 -0500, Frederick David Abraham wrote: >[Mike Gane: Baudrillard: Critical and Fatal Theory, Routledge, 1988, p. >35).] Thanks for the reference. >One could look at institutional religion, not only as Rosalina suggests, as >motivated by fear of the unknown, but also exploiting fear, and as a Barthes >type object, whose dehumanization can cause fear. Very true: the church and many a fundamentalistic christian gave sufficient reason to suspect them of "exploiting fear", not because religion is a dehumanized object, but because our religion can also be "loose from God" (In Dutch we have a very nice expression for something very bad, we say it (or he/she) is "van God los", it was not in my dictionary, hope I gave the right translation) Arie ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 20:44:58 -0500 Reply-To: jungsoul@vgernet.net Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Michelle Christides Subject: Re: religion as construct Great! Arie, I really like that Dutch expression, we should use it in our new language! M Arie Dirkzwager wrote: > > At 11:15 4-01-97 -0500, Frederick David Abraham wrote: > >[Mike Gane: Baudrillard: Critical and Fatal Theory, Routledge, 1988, p. > >35).] > > Thanks for the reference. > > >One could look at institutional religion, not only as Rosalina suggests, as > >motivated by fear of the unknown, but also exploiting fear, and as a Barthes > >type object, whose dehumanization can cause fear. > > Very true: the church and many a fundamentalistic christian gave > sufficient reason to suspect them of "exploiting fear", not because religion > is a dehumanized object, but because our religion can also be "loose from > God" (In Dutch we have a very nice expression for something very bad, we say > it (or he/she) is "van God los", it was not in my dictionary, hope I gave > the right translation) > > Arie ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 07:48:40 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Fred Abraham Subject: Re: religion as construct This message was originally sent to brad only. Since it was a reply to a long message that included some history of the thread, I though it came from the server, and that my reply would go to the list, but apparently some of the messages from the list come in with the originator rather than the list address, a quirk of a combination of mailers I guess. I am new, but this is the first of two such boo-boos. I shall forward another shortly as well. Sorry if it mixes the thread trajectory. >To: bradmcc@cloud9.net >From: abraham@sover.net (Fred Abraham) >Subject: Re: religion as construct > >reply to brad McCormick et al whoose comments follow the reply: > >Also the story of Prometheseus, and the Garden of Edan. The gods come off pretty petty in these encounters, and human aspirations seem worthwhile despite their punishment by the gods. To me these are all not about challanging the gods or making a name, but stem from Nietszche's will to knowledge, the joy of curiosity mixed in with the angst of finite reality, the old existential game again. The centrality of language to culture and knowledge as the postmoderns emphasize, is seen in the Babel story: > >And the whole earth wa of one language and of one speech. And it came to pass, as they jounreyed east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there. And they said one to another, "Come, let us make brick, and burn them thouroughly." And they had brick for stone, and slime they had for mortar. and they said: "Come let us build us a city, and a tower, with its top in heaven, and let us make a name; lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth." And the Lord came down to see the cith and the tower, which the children of men builded. And the Lord said: "Behold, they are one people, and they have all one language; and this is what they begin to do; and now nothing will be withholden to them, which they proopsose to do. Come let us go down, and there confound their language, taht they may not understand one another's speech." So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth; and they left off to build the city. Threefopre was the name of it called Babel; because the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth; and from then did the Lord scatter them aborad upon the face of all the earth. Genesis, 11. Quoted from Goldstein in Robertson & Combs, Chaos Theory in Psychology and the Life Sciences, Erlbaum, 1995. > > > >>Arie Dirkzwager wrote: >>> >>> At 12:58 4-01-97 +0100, Herbert Mehrtens wrote: >>> >>>> What would happen to this discussion if I were to suggest that religion >> is >>> >>>> *not* a subjective experience of the sublime/divine, but is instead a >>> social >>> >>>> construct by which people work out issues of ethics >>> > >>> >just a few remarks: >>> > >>[snip] >>> As an example: we constructed in Rotterdam a wonderful, >>> beautiful new bridge, the "Erasmus bridge" of which we are very proud and >>> which was opened by queen Beatrix with large festivities. However a month >>> later it started swaying in the storm and rain and it had to be closed and >>> patched up. This is a story (modern "myth"?) I thought as funny as the >>> biblical Babel story on human hubris in the face of God. >>[snip] >> >>This is one of my pet peeves: There was nothing hubristic about the >>aspirations of the Babel-onians, except that they underestimated the >>paranoia of their God. The Babel-onians >>did not want to usurp God's position in the Cosmos, but only to >>"make a name for themselves", i.e., to enter as peers with Him in >>universal discourse. >> >>This is, of course, quite >>different from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers thinking they >>can manage the global ecosystem by building dams, etc., which >>*is* hubristic. The Babel-onians, unlike the Corps of Engineers, >>did not aspire to *control everything*, but rather to attain to the >>dignity of interlocutors in the universal network of discourse >>among all sapient beings, in which God, however much more *powerful* >>than they, would participate as only another perspective, offering >>His views, and listening carefully to the criticisms of the others, >>who would be His equal not in *strength* but in reflective, self- >>accountable thought and expression (sort of like Atilla the Hun(sp?) >>talking with Stephen Hawking(sp?)). >> >>It is obvious that God can destroy people. What's the big deal, >>or the great virtue in that? But if He restrains Himself, >>and speaks with us in ways which let us be, He (as well as we) >>just might learn something and even find some companionship.... >> >>-- >> Mankind is not the master of all the stuff that exists, but >> Everyman (woman, child) is a judge of the world. >> >>Bradford McCormick, Ed.D. >>bradmcc@cloud9.net / (914)238-0788 >>27 Poillon Road, Chappaqua, NY 10514-3403 USA >>---------------------------------------------- >>Visit my website ==> http://www.cloud9.net/~bradmcc >> >> > Priscilla Magdamo-Abraham & Frederick David Abraham R1 Box 2080 Gregg Hill Waterbury Center VT 05677 USA 802 244-8104 Tel 802 244-1508 Fax abraham@sover.net http://www.pacweb.com/blueberry/ ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 07:48:45 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Fred Abraham Subject: van God los My reply to this message was also just to Michelle. Since her comment dealt with a comment of Arie's ("van God los"), I assumed it was to the list, not to me. Sorry, just wasn't paying attention. At any rate, I now forward it to the list" Michelle said: >To: jungsoul@vgernet.net >From: abraham@sover.net (Fred Abraham) >Subject: van God los > >>Great! Arie, I really like that Dutch expression, we should use it in >>our new language! >>Michelle >> >Gershom Sholem, in his "Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism" (1941) writes: > >[The mysic's] "attitude is determined by the fundamental experience of the inner self which enters into immediate contact with God or the Metaphyusical reality. . . > >"For it must be said that this act of personal experience, the systematic investigation and interpretation of which forms the task of all mystical speculation, is of a highly contradictory and even paradoxical nature. Certainly this is true of all attempts to describe it in words and perhaps, where there are no longer words, of the act itself. What kind of direct relation can there be between the Creator and His creaturee, between the finite and the infinite; and how can words express an experience for which there is no adequate simile in this finite world of man? Yet it would be wrong and superficial to conclude that the contradiction implied by the nature of mystical experience betokens an inherent absurdidty. It will be wiser to assume,. . . that the religious world of the mystic can be expressed in terms applicable to rational knowledge only with the help of paradox. Among the psychologists, G. Stratton, in his "Psychology of Religious Life" (19ll), had laid particular stress on this essential conflict in religious life and thought, even in its non-mystical form. It is well known that the descriptions given by the mytstics of their peculiar experiences and of the God whose presence they experience are full of paradoxes of every kind. It is not the least baffling of these paradoxes -- to take an instance which is common to Jewish and Christian mystics -- tht God is frequently described as the mystical Nothing. . . " > >Gershom then describes that mysticism has a unique historical context for every religion despite their communalities. Mysticism he describes as a stage in this historical development: > >"Mysticism is a definite stage in the historical development of religion and makes its appearance under certain well-defined conditions. It is connected with, and inseparable from, a certain stage of the religious consciousness. It is also incompatible with certain other stages which leave no room for mysticism in the sense in which the term is commonly understood. > >"The first stage represents the world as being full of gods whom man encounters at every step and whose presence can be experience wihtout recourse to ecstatic meditiation. In ohter words, there is no room for mystiism as long as the abyss between Man and God had not become a fact of inner consciousness. That, however, is the case only while the childhood of mankind, its mytical epoch, lasts. The immediate consciousness of the interrelation and interdependence of things, their essential unity which precedes duality and in fact know nothing of it, the truly monistic universe of man's mythical age, all this is alien to the spirit of mysicism. At the same time it will become clear why certain elements of this monistic consciousness recur on another plane and in different guise in the mystical consciousness. In this first stage, Nature is the scene of man's relation to God. >"The second period which knows no real mysticism is the creative epoch in which the emergence, the break-through of religion occurs. Religion's supreme function is to destroy the dream-harmony of Man, Universe and God, to isolate man from the other elements of the dream stage of his mythical and primitive consciousness. For in its classical form, religion signifies the creation of a vast abyss, conceived as absolute, between God, the infinite and transcendental Being, and Man, the finite creature. For this reason alone, the rise of institutuional religion, which is also the classical stage in the hisory of religion, is more widely removed than any other period from mysticism and all it implies. Man becomes aware of a fundamental duality, of a vast gulf which can be crossed by nothing but the voice; the voice of God, directing and law-giving in His revelation, and the voice of man in prayer. the great monotheistic religions live and unfold in the everpresent consciousness of this bipolarity, of the existence of an abyss which can never be bridged. To them the scene of religion is no longer Nature, the the moral and religious actions of man and the community of men, whose interplay brings about its history as, in a sense, the sage on which the drama of man's relation to God unfolds. >"And only now that religion has received, in history, its classical expression in a certain communal way of living and believing, only now do we witness the phenomenon called mysticism: its rise coincides with what may be called the romantic period of religion. Mysticism does not deny or overlook the abyss; on the contrary, it begins by realizing its existence, but from there it porceeds to a quest for the secret that will close it in, the hidden path that will span it. It srtives to piece together the fragments broken by the religious cateclysm, to bring back the old unity which religion has destroyed, but on a new plane, where the workd of mythology and that of revelation meet in the sould of man. . . " > >Sorry for the long quote, but he writes better than I do. > >It would seem that the problem of the mystic is much in common with that of the hermeneuticist (a little help from Arie here). They both emphasize getting to know the source a bit better in order to interpret their words better. As Chaldonis said (Introduction to the Correct Interpretation of Reasonable Discourses and Writings, 1742): >"148. Unless pretense is used, speeches and written works have one intention -- that the reader or listener completely understand what is written or spoken. For this reason, it is important that we know what it means to completely understand someone." > >There are, of course, major differences between hermeneutics and mysticism. That doesn't keep me from wanting to learn more about each. It is fun to mix mysticism, hermeneutics, postmodernism, and chaos theory. A beginner at all of these, it is fun and illuminative to surf on this attractor. > Priscilla Magdamo-Abraham & Frederick David Abraham R1 Box 2080 Gregg Hill Waterbury Center VT 05677 USA 802 244-8104 Tel 802 244-1508 Fax abraham@sover.net http://www.pacweb.com/blueberry/ ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 09:10:47 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Fred Abraham Subject: religion as construct/van God los Here is an interesting reply to one of my misdirected messages from Brad, with additional comments of my own added. As you can see, Brad was in no need of my quote of the Babel. In Chaos Theory we have been quite concernec about babbleing. Goldstein and I have been concerned with this problem. >Received: from clover.sover.net (root@clover.sover.net [204.71.16.10]) > by maple.sover.net (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP > id JAA08690 for ; Sun, 5 Jan 1997 09:23:43 -0500 (EST) >Received: from cloud9.net (cITCSZ8seKhYhuBa3Uww+nXCbdP9ej3U@cloud9.net [168.100.1.2]) > by clover.sover.net (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP > id JAA13403 for ; Sun, 5 Jan 1997 09:23:41 -0500 (EST) >Received: from bradmcc (bradmcc.dialup.cloud9.net [168.100.205.126]) by cloud9.net (8.8.4/cloud9-1.0) with SMTP id JAA29517 for ; Sun, 5 Jan 1997 09:23:39 -0500 (EST) >Message-ID: <32CFB964.5E3B@cloud9.net> >Date: Sun, 05 Jan 1997 09:23:32 -0500 >From: "Brad McCormick, Ed.D." >Reply-To: bradmcc@cloud9.net >Organization: AbiCo. >X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (WinNT; I) >MIME-Version: 1.0 >To: Fred Abraham >Subject: Re: religion as construct >References: <199701051329.IAA04034@maple.sover.net> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >X-UIDL: 42ebb61be23c2693d74f4fa725c9871b > Brad: >I presume you *intended* to respond to me personally, and not to the >mailing list? Fred: No. That was a mistake. > >Fred Abraham wrote: >> >> reply to brad McCormick et al whoose comments follow the reply: >> >> Also the story of Prometheseus, and the Garden of Edan. The gods come off >> pretty petty in these encounters, and human aspirations seem worthwhile >> despite their punishment by the gods. > Brad: >The God of Abraham an the God of the Popes are, alas, not the *only* >deities >who indulge in anti-human(e) activities. But, regarding the Greek gods, >Bruno Snell, in "The Discovery of the Mind: In Greek Philosophy and >Literature" >(available from http://www.amazon.com), has a beautiful chapter about >how the Greek gods, unlike the Judeo-Christian God, contributed to >their believers' sense of self-esteem, rather than diminishing it. >(I grant you that the story of Prometheus may not fit in well here.) >You might want to check it out. Fred: Sounds like its more than worth the effort. I would suspect that the Greek gods had a mixed record on this account. Athena's role in the trial of Orestes, for example is interpreted very differently by Hampden-Turner and Riane Eisler in terms of gender issues. (see article on creativity in the book just out by Sulis & Combs eds., with title something like chaos theory in psychology World Scientific). Story tellers locally have similar differences in telling the Odessy, again Athena plays a key role. > >> To me these are all not about >> challanging the gods or making a name, but stem from Nietszche's will to >> knowledge, the joy of curiosity mixed in with the angst of finite reality, >> the old existential game again. The centrality of language to culture and >> knowledge as the postmoderns emphasize, is seen in the Babel story: >> Genesis: >> And the whole earth wa of one language and of one speech. And it came to >> pass, as they jounreyed east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; > Fred: Sorry to preach to the converted. Again it was the error of where I thought the message was going. Brad: >I know the story of Babel by heart (check my WEB site). An artistic >reference: Do you know Werner Herzog's film "The Mystery of Kaspar >Hauser" >(The German title translates to: "Every Man for Himself and God Against >Everybody")? In the film, Kaspar has beautiful dreams of "cities on the >plain". >I think the film is a magnificent expression of the hope for a >self-responsible >humanity. > >[snip] I will check out the film if possible. It may not be known here in the USA; its not in the movie guide we just got. Perhaps there is a video version available in Europe? >From here on I do not attempt to keep track of the authors, although I think I follow them. A mix of Arie and Brad mostly I think: >> >> >Arie Dirkzwager wrote: >> >> >> >> At 12:58 4-01-97 +0100, Herbert Mehrtens wrote: >> >> >>>> What would happen to this discussion if I were to suggest that religion >> > is >> >> >>>> *not* a subjective experience of the sublime/divine, but is instead a >> >> social >> >> >>>> construct by which people work out issues of ethics >> >> > >> >> >just a few remarks: >> >> > >> >[snip] >> >> As an example: we constructed in Rotterdam a wonderful, >> >> beautiful new bridge, the "Erasmus bridge" of which we are very proud and >> >> which was opened by queen Beatrix with large festivities. However a month >> >> later it started swaying in the storm and rain and it had to be closed and >> >> patched up. This is a story (modern "myth"?) I thought as funny as the >> >> biblical Babel story on human hubris in the face of God. >> >[snip] >> > >> >This is one of my pet peeves: There was nothing hubristic about the >> >aspirations of the Babel-onians, except that they underestimated the >> >paranoia of their God. The Babel-onians >> >did not want to usurp God's position in the Cosmos, but only to >> >"make a name for themselves", i.e., to enter as peers with Him in >> >universal discourse. >> > >> >This is, of course, quite >> >different from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers thinking they >> >can manage the global ecosystem by building dams, etc., which >> >*is* hubristic. The Babel-onians, unlike the Corps of Engineers, >> >did not aspire to *control everything*, but rather to attain to the >> >dignity of interlocutors in the universal network of discourse >> >among all sapient beings, in which God, however much more *powerful* >> >than they, would participate as only another perspective, offering >> >His views, and listening carefully to the criticisms of the others, >> >who would be His equal not in *strength* but in reflective, self- >> >accountable thought and expression (sort of like Atilla the Hun(sp?) >> >talking with Stephen Hawking(sp?)). >> > >> >It is obvious that God can destroy people. What's the big deal, >> >or the great virtue in that? But if He restrains Himself, >> >and speaks with us in ways which let us be, He (as well as we) >> >just might learn something and even find some companionship.... >> > >[snip] > >Yes, the more I think about it, the more I am impressed by >the *difference* between the builders of Babel and the U.S. >Army Corps of Engineers (or the Chinese building that huge dam >across the Yellow River, etc.). Master craftsmen do not >simply do their job well: first they assess whether the >job should be done at all. > >-- > >* * * > x\ * > |"xx * * > |==xxx * * * > *|""xx"| ...[T]hey came upon a plain... and settled > |"""xxx there. And they said to one another... * > |=======| "Come, let us build ourselves a city, and > |"""""""| * a tower with its top in the heavens, and > |"""""""| let us make a name for ourselves; otherwise /\ >|=========| we shall be scattered abroad upon the face |""| >|"""""""""| of the whole earth." (Genesis 11:2-4) |""| >|"""""||""| |||| >----//==\\-------------------------------------------------------- >Bradford McCormick, Ed.D. >bradmcc@cloud9.net / (914)238-0788 >27 Poillon Road, Chappaqua, NY 10514-3403 USA >---------------------------------------------- >Visit my website ==> http://www.cloud9.net/~bradmcc > > Priscilla Magdamo-Abraham & Frederick David Abraham R1 Box 2080 Gregg Hill Waterbury Center VT 05677 USA 802 244-8104 Tel 802 244-1508 Fax abraham@sover.net http://www.pacweb.com/blueberry/ ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 11:07:42 -0500 Reply-To: bradmcc@cloud9.net Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Brad McCormick, Ed.D." Organization: AbiCo. Subject: Re: religion as construct/van God los Fred Abraham wrote: > > Here is an interesting reply to one of my misdirected messages from Brad, Hi, Brad here.... > with additional comments of my own added. As you can see, Brad was in no > need of my quote of the Babel. In Chaos Theory we have been quite concernec > about babbleing. Goldstein and I have been concerned with this problem. > [mass of network message headers snipped] > > > Brad: > > >I presume you *intended* to respond to me personally, and not to the > >mailing list? > > Fred: No. That was a mistake. > > > > >Fred Abraham wrote: > >> > >> reply to brad McCormick et al whoose comments follow the reply: > >> > >> Also the story of Prometheseus, and the Garden of Edan. The gods come off > >> pretty petty in these encounters, and human aspirations seem worthwhile > >> despite their punishment by the gods. > > > Brad: > > >The God of Abraham an the God of the Popes are, alas, not the *only* > >deities > >who indulge in anti-human(e) activities. But, regarding the Greek gods, > >Bruno Snell, in "The Discovery of the Mind: In Greek Philosophy and > >Literature" > >(available from http://www.amazon.com), has a beautiful chapter about > >how the Greek gods, unlike the Judeo-Christian God, contributed to > >their believers' sense of self-esteem, rather than diminishing it. > >(I grant you that the story of Prometheus may not fit in well here.) > >You might want to check it out. > > Fred: Sounds like its more than worth the effort. I would suspect that the > Greek gods had a mixed record on this account. Athena's role in the trial of > Orestes, for example is interpreted very differently by Hampden-Turner and > Riane Eisler in terms of gender issues. (see article on creativity in the > book just out by Sulis & Combs eds., with title something like chaos theory > in psychology World Scientific). Story tellers locally have similar > differences in telling the Odessy, again Athena plays a key role. Snell's book is impressive for more than this one reason. It is important to realize that human infants do not naturally grow up to have "minds", but that having a mind is a result of a certain kind of childrearing (see Julian Jaynes "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" for some ideas that are similar to Snell, but Snell's book is more nuanced and far the better of the two). > > > > >> To me these are all not about > >> challanging the gods or making a name, but stem from Nietszche's will to > >> knowledge, the joy of curiosity mixed in with the angst of finite reality, > >> the old existential game again. The centrality of language to culture and > >> knowledge as the postmoderns emphasize, is seen in the Babel story: > >> > Genesis: > >> And the whole earth wa of one language and of one speech. And it came to > >> pass, as they jounreyed east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; > > > Fred: Sorry to preach to the converted. Again it was the error of where I > thought the message was going. > > Brad: > >I know the story of Babel by heart (check my WEB site). An artistic > >reference: Do you know Werner Herzog's film "The Mystery of Kaspar > >Hauser" > >(The German title translates to: "Every Man for Himself and God Against > >Everybody")? In the film, Kaspar has beautiful dreams of "cities on the > >plain". > >I think the film is a magnificent expression of the hope for a > >self-responsible > >humanity. > > > >[snip] > > I will check out the film if possible. It may not be known here in the USA; > its not in the movie guide we just got. Perhaps there is a video version > available in Europe? There *must* be a video version available in Europe, since that's where it came from. I rented to film on cassette from my local Blockbuster video store in Mt. Kisco New York USA. I was truly touched by it. It's one of those things about which I feel that they show that mankind is capable of things worth existing. > > >From here on I do not attempt to keep track of the authors, although I think > I follow them. A mix of Arie and Brad mostly I think: [snip] > >> >> As an example: we constructed in Rotterdam a wonderful, > >> >> beautiful new bridge, the "Erasmus bridge" of which we are very proud and > >> >> which was opened by queen Beatrix with large festivities. However a month > >> >> later it started swaying in the storm and rain and it had to be closed and > >> >> patched up. This is a story (modern "myth"?) I thought as funny as the > >> >> biblical Babel story on human hubris in the face of God. > >> >[snip] > >> > > >> >This is one of my pet peeves: There was nothing hubristic about the > >> >aspirations of the Babel-onians, except that they underestimated the > >> >paranoia of their God. The Babel-onians > >> >did not want to usurp God's position in the Cosmos, but only to > >> >"make a name for themselves", i.e., to enter as peers with Him in > >> >universal discourse. > >> > > >> >This is, of course, quite > >> >different from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers thinking they > >> >can manage the global ecosystem by building dams, etc., which > >> >*is* hubristic. The Babel-onians, unlike the Corps of Engineers, > >> >did not aspire to *control everything*, but rather to attain to the > >> >dignity of interlocutors in the universal network of discourse > >> >among all sapient beings, in which God, however much more *powerful* > >> >than they, would participate as only another perspective, offering > >> >His views, and listening carefully to the criticisms of the others, > >> >who would be His equal not in *strength* but in reflective, self- > >> >accountable thought and expression (sort of like Atilla the Hun(sp?) > >> >talking with Stephen Hawking(sp?)). "The great" show their greatness by raising up those lesser than themselves, not by further putting them down. It would not have threatened God's "SES" to have come down and talked with the master builders of Babel, to find out what they wanted, and see what kind of vis-a-vis they might negotiate. > >> > > >> >It is obvious that God can destroy people. What's the big deal, > >> >or the great virtue in that? But if He restrains Himself, > >> >and speaks with us in ways which let us be, He (as well as we) > >> >just might learn something and even find some companionship.... > >> > > >[snip] Alas, I have lost the reference to something I read somewhere about God's isolation in His Omni-everything-ence: "God reigns in sorrow'" > > > >Yes, the more I think about it, the more I am impressed by > >the *difference* between the builders of Babel and the U.S. > >Army Corps of Engineers (or the Chinese building that huge dam > >across the Yellow River, etc.). Master craftsmen do not > >simply do their job well: first they assess whether the > >job should be done at all. And then, of course, if they deem, in their best judgment, that the thing ought not to be done, not only do they not do it, but they work to keep others from doing it. Politics and science are undisentangleable, and probably the Roman Catholic Church's biggest coup in the case of Galileo, was to intimidate scientists for the next 400 into shying away from applying their insights to the political implications of the material policies of Church and State. > > > >-- > > > >* * * > > x\ * > > |"xx * * > > |==xxx * * * > > *|""xx"| ...[T]hey came upon a plain... and settled > > |"""xxx there. And they said to one another... * > > |=======| "Come, let us build ourselves a city, and > > |"""""""| * a tower with its top in the heavens, and > > |"""""""| let us make a name for ourselves; otherwise /\ > >|=========| we shall be scattered abroad upon the face |""| > >|"""""""""| of the whole earth." (Genesis 11:2-4) |""| > >|"""""||""| |||| > >----//==\\-------------------------------------------------------- > >Bradford McCormick, Ed.D. > >bradmcc@cloud9.net / (914)238-0788 > >27 Poillon Road, Chappaqua, NY 10514-3403 USA > >---------------------------------------------- > >Visit my website ==> http://www.cloud9.net/~bradmcc > > > > > Priscilla Magdamo-Abraham & Frederick David Abraham > R1 Box 2080 Gregg Hill > Waterbury Center VT 05677 USA > 802 244-8104 Tel > 802 244-1508 Fax > abraham@sover.net > http://www.pacweb.com/blueberry/ -- Mankind is not the master of all the stuff that exists, but Everyman (woman, child) is a judge of the world. Bradford McCormick, Ed.D. bradmcc@cloud9.net / (914)238-0788 27 Poillon Road, Chappaqua, NY 10514-3403 USA ---------------------------------------------- Visit my website ==> http://www.cloud9.net/~bradmcc ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1997 01:34:23 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Fred Abraham Subject: Re: religion as construct/van God los X-To: bradmcc@cloud9.net Brad (I hope you don't mind if I cc the list; this transcends a private discussion I think). I like your ideas a lot and really appreciate all your information here. For the information of others, Brad's reccomend of the Snell book is compelling, and when I visited the Amazon book site, I found it to be quite inexpensive (<$10). Brad wrote: >Fred Abraham wrote: >> >> Here is an interesting reply to one of my misdirected messages from Brad, > >Hi, Brad here.... > >> with additional comments of my own added. As you can see, Brad was in no >> need of my quote of the Babel. In Chaos Theory we have been quite concernec >> about babbleing. Goldstein and I have been concerned with this problem. >> >[mass of network message headers snipped] >> > >> Brad: >> >> >I presume you *intended* to respond to me personally, and not to the >> >mailing list? >> >> Fred: No. That was a mistake. >> >> > >> >Fred Abraham wrote: >> >> >> >> reply to brad McCormick et al whoose comments follow the reply: >> >> >> >> Also the story of Prometheseus, and the Garden of Edan. The gods come off >> >> pretty petty in these encounters, and human aspirations seem worthwhile >> >> despite their punishment by the gods. >> > >> Brad: >> >> >The God of Abraham an the God of the Popes are, alas, not the *only* >> >deities >> >who indulge in anti-human(e) activities. But, regarding the Greek gods, >> >Bruno Snell, in "The Discovery of the Mind: In Greek Philosophy and >> >Literature" >> >(available from http://www.amazon.com), has a beautiful chapter about >> >how the Greek gods, unlike the Judeo-Christian God, contributed to >> >their believers' sense of self-esteem, rather than diminishing it. >> >(I grant you that the story of Prometheus may not fit in well here.) >> >You might want to check it out. >> >> Fred: Sounds like its more than worth the effort. I would suspect that the >> Greek gods had a mixed record on this account. Athena's role in the trial of >> Orestes, for example is interpreted very differently by Hampden-Turner and >> Riane Eisler in terms of gender issues. (see article on creativity in the >> book just out by Sulis & Combs eds., with title something like chaos theory >> in psychology World Scientific). Story tellers locally have similar >> differences in telling the Odessy, again Athena plays a key role. > >Snell's book is impressive for more than this one reason. It is >important to realize that human infants do not naturally grow up to have >"minds", but that having a mind is a result of a certain kind of >childrearing (see Julian Jaynes "The Origin of Consciousness >in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" for some ideas that are >similar to Snell, but Snell's book is more nuanced and far the >better of the two). > >> >> > >> >> To me these are all not about >> >> challanging the gods or making a name, but stem from Nietszche's will to >> >> knowledge, the joy of curiosity mixed in with the angst of finite reality, >> >> the old existential game again. The centrality of language to culture and >> >> knowledge as the postmoderns emphasize, is seen in the Babel story: >> >> >> Genesis: >> >> And the whole earth wa of one language and of one speech. And it came to >> >> pass, as they jounreyed east, that they found a plain in the land of > Shinar; >> > >> Fred: Sorry to preach to the converted. Again it was the error of where I >> thought the message was going. >> >> Brad: >> >I know the story of Babel by heart (check my WEB site). An artistic >> >reference: Do you know Werner Herzog's film "The Mystery of Kaspar >> >Hauser" >> >(The German title translates to: "Every Man for Himself and God Against >> >Everybody")? In the film, Kaspar has beautiful dreams of "cities on the >> >plain". >> >I think the film is a magnificent expression of the hope for a >> >self-responsible >> >humanity. >> > >> >[snip] >> >> I will check out the film if possible. It may not be known here in the USA; >> its not in the movie guide we just got. Perhaps there is a video version >> available in Europe? > >There *must* be a video version available in Europe, since >that's where it came from. I rented to film on cassette from >my local Blockbuster video store in Mt. Kisco New York USA. >I was truly touched by it. It's one of those things about >which I feel that they show that mankind is capable of things >worth existing. > >> >> >From here on I do not attempt to keep track of the authors, although I think >> I follow them. A mix of Arie and Brad mostly I think: >[snip] >> >> >> As an example: we constructed in Rotterdam a wonderful, >> >> >> beautiful new bridge, the "Erasmus bridge" of which we are very proud > and >> >> >> which was opened by queen Beatrix with large festivities. However a > month >> >> >> later it started swaying in the storm and rain and it had to be closed > and >> >> >> patched up. This is a story (modern "myth"?) I thought as funny as the >> >> >> biblical Babel story on human hubris in the face of God. >> >> >[snip] >> >> > >> >> >This is one of my pet peeves: There was nothing hubristic about the >> >> >aspirations of the Babel-onians, except that they underestimated the >> >> >paranoia of their God. The Babel-onians >> >> >did not want to usurp God's position in the Cosmos, but only to >> >> >"make a name for themselves", i.e., to enter as peers with Him in >> >> >universal discourse. >> >> > >> >> >This is, of course, quite >> >> >different from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers thinking they >> >> >can manage the global ecosystem by building dams, etc., which >> >> >*is* hubristic. The Babel-onians, unlike the Corps of Engineers, >> >> >did not aspire to *control everything*, but rather to attain to the >> >> >dignity of interlocutors in the universal network of discourse >> >> >among all sapient beings, in which God, however much more *powerful* >> >> >than they, would participate as only another perspective, offering >> >> >His views, and listening carefully to the criticisms of the others, >> >> >who would be His equal not in *strength* but in reflective, self- >> >> >accountable thought and expression (sort of like Atilla the Hun(sp?) >> >> >talking with Stephen Hawking(sp?)). > >"The great" show their greatness by raising up those lesser than >themselves, >not by further putting them down. It would not have threatened God's >"SES" to have come down and talked with the master builders of Babel, >to find out what they wanted, and see what kind of vis-a-vis they >might negotiate. > >> >> > >> >> >It is obvious that God can destroy people. What's the big deal, >> >> >or the great virtue in that? But if He restrains Himself, >> >> >and speaks with us in ways which let us be, He (as well as we) >> >> >just might learn something and even find some companionship.... >> >> > >> >[snip] > >Alas, I have lost the reference to something I read somewhere about >God's isolation in His Omni-everything-ence: > > "God reigns in sorrow'" > >> > >> >Yes, the more I think about it, the more I am impressed by >> >the *difference* between the builders of Babel and the U.S. >> >Army Corps of Engineers (or the Chinese building that huge dam >> >across the Yellow River, etc.). Master craftsmen do not >> >simply do their job well: first they assess whether the >> >job should be done at all. > >And then, of course, if they deem, in their best judgment, that >the thing ought not to be done, not only do they not do it, but they >work to keep others from doing it. Politics and science are >undisentangleable, and probably the Roman Catholic Church's >biggest coup in the case of Galileo, was to intimidate scientists >for the next 400 into shying away from applying their insights to >the political implications of the material >policies of Church and State. > >> > >> >-- >> > >> >* * * >> > x\ * >> > |"xx * * >> > |==xxx * * * >> > *|""xx"| ...[T]hey came upon a plain... and settled >> > |"""xxx there. And they said to one another... * >> > |=======| "Come, let us build ourselves a city, and >> > |"""""""| * a tower with its top in the heavens, and >> > |"""""""| let us make a name for ourselves; otherwise /\ >> >|=========| we shall be scattered abroad upon the face |""| >> >|"""""""""| of the whole earth." (Genesis 11:2-4) |""| >> >|"""""||""| |||| >> >----//==\\-------------------------------------------------------- >> >Bradford McCormick, Ed.D. >> >bradmcc@cloud9.net / (914)238-0788 >> >27 Poillon Road, Chappaqua, NY 10514-3403 USA >> >---------------------------------------------- >> >Visit my website ==> http://www.cloud9.net/~bradmcc >> > >> > >> Priscilla Magdamo-Abraham & Frederick David Abraham >> R1 Box 2080 Gregg Hill >> Waterbury Center VT 05677 USA >> 802 244-8104 Tel >> 802 244-1508 Fax >> abraham@sover.net >> http://www.pacweb.com/blueberry/ > >-- > Mankind is not the master of all the stuff that exists, but > Everyman (woman, child) is a judge of the world. > >Bradford McCormick, Ed.D. >bradmcc@cloud9.net / (914)238-0788 >27 Poillon Road, Chappaqua, NY 10514-3403 USA >---------------------------------------------- >Visit my website ==> http://www.cloud9.net/~bradmcc > > Priscilla Magdamo-Abraham & Frederick David Abraham R1 Box 2080 Gregg Hill Waterbury Center VT 05677 USA 802 244-8104 Tel 802 244-1508 Fax abraham@sover.net http://www.pacweb.com/blueberry/ ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1997 12:45:22 +0100 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Arie Dirkzwager Subject: Re: religion as construct (social life as construct, too) X-To: bradmcc@cloud9.net Preliminary: This seems to be about child rearing, but still I hope it can make a contribution to the tread returning to "Science as Culture" (a "cult" -*not* in the sense of "rage" or "sect") and the "religious" foundations of science (and technology) in our society (on what faithes are they based?) Arie At 18:39 6-01-97 -0500, Brad wrote: >Arie Dirkzwager wrote: >[snip] >> >> All these problems are caused by human action motivated by ... >> (those dots point to THE basic problem IMHO. > >Tell me. I don't like suspense or guessing games. Don't like some good analytical and critical thinking either? Just wondered where that would lead you to. It let me to "action that is van-God-los" and "motivated to be self-sufficient and completely autonomous "van-God-los". Now I told you - would you believe me? >> >My recommendation #2. Rear children according to the notions of such >> >authors as Winnicott, Heinz Kohut, Lloyd de Mause and Alice Miller. >> >> Sorry, I'm not familiar with these authors - rather have your >> opinion than this name-calling (no offence meant - do you have references?) > >The short-cut of scanty bibliographical citation is not "name-calling", >but I agree that if you don't know the references, they aren't useful. > >Basically the child needs to be raised with love, security and respect. >He or she needs to be given the freedom to explore and form his or her >own judgments (within developmental limits), and not molded into >what the parents want him or her to be. That's very general, so not too >helpful. > >Here's an example bad childrearing from Freud: Freud's brother invited >Freud >to visit on Freud's birthday. It was a time of year when cherries were >a delicacy, and the brother bought some as a present for Freud. When >Freud >arrived, the brother had his 3 year old son deliver the cherries to >Uncle >Sigmund, who received them with pleasure. Freud notes that the child >was allowed to have only one cherry, and, the following night, dreamed >of >eating cherries. > >Here the child has been *tempted*, and used as an amusement for the >adults' >pleasure. If the brother didn't want to give the child any cherries, >the >brother could have given them to Freud himself, and left the child out >of >it. But it was presumably so much cuter to have the child deliver the >present to Uncle Sigmund. I believe (and this is a point Alice Miller >goes after in her books...) that children should not be >used (i.e. *ab*used) as ornaments of adult social life. > >Here's an example of good childrearing (IMO) from a person I know: When >this person was a child, his parents told him (and meant it): "Tom, >do what you believe is right. You will make mistakes. We stand behind >you." >And when Tom refused to be cute and obsequious for adults, his parents >told >the adults that they did not raise him to be obsequious to adults, >and that therefore the adults had the choice of treating him with >respect or >ceasing to bother him. I didn't skip this in this reply because I think it explains clearly also my attitude towards child-rearing. I'll postpone my question what this has to do with religion. Just one remark: just as parents give their Children toys to enhance their (autonomous) development, so they should also tell them about God in a way that enhances the development of their knowledge and love of God, the development of a sound religious relationship. I bet Sigmund's brother was a "bully" (your image of "God"). >The key is for the parents to be supportive but not intrusive. Let the child climb but be prepared to catch it when it falls, not being (too) supportive when things (obviously, according to uncertain subjective judgement) go "wrong". >That >entails genuine unselfishness on the part of the adults. I therefore >believe that people should not have children until they are satisfied >with >their place in life, so that *giving* to the child does not entail >any conflicting feelings of self-denial. Every child deserves to be >brought into a world of abundance (IMO), So let's provide the poor with abundance that they may have also (a few) children! >and if poor people stopped >having >children that would eventually force the rich to clean up their own >messes >(which would probably quickly result in some salubrious changes in the >organization of society). Might be the only feasible way, given the selfishness of the rich. Still I hope (God will lead us along) a better way that's not "van-God-los" as the one you propose is IMHO. Best regards! Arie ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1997 11:02:04 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Em Farrell Subject: Re: religion as construct/van God los I suggest that people should be parsimonious in deciding how much of previous messages to include in replies. Some people are objecting to the number and length of messages in this thread. One person has signed off because of them. Bob Young List Owner __________________________________________ Robert Maxwell Young: robert@rmy1.demon.co.uk 26 Freegrove Rd., London N7 9RQ, Eng. tel.+44 171 607 8306 fax.+44 171 609 4837 Professor of Psychotherapy and Psychoanalytic Studies, Centre for Psychotherapeutic Studies, University of Sheffield. Home page and writings: http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/ Process Press publications: http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/process_press/index.html 'One must imagine Sisyphus happy.' - Camus ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 00:49:50 GMT Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Tiago Nunes PLEASE REMOVE FROM LIST ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1997 19:52:46 -0800 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: H-NEXA Editor Michael Gregory Subject: Your shop, I believe. Saludos! >>Return-Path: >Errors-To: >Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 00:49:50 GMT >Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture > >Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture > >From: Tiago Nunes >To: Multiple recipients of list SCIENCE-AS-CULTURE > > >PLEASE REMOVE FROM LIST > > ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 12:18:48 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "David A. Wallace" Subject: Museums and the Web - COnference Program --------------------------------------------------------------- CONFERENCE PROGRAM AVAILABLE Museums and the Web: An International Conference March 16-19, 1997 =96 Los Angeles, California --------------------------------------------------------------- Archives & Museum Informatics is pleased to announce that the full program for the Museums and the Web conference is available at: www.archimuse.com.= =20 The program describes in detail:=20 =B7 Workshops: 14 half-day and 2 full-day. =20 =B7 Sessions: Over 50 papers in 17 sessions (including a Technical Briefings session) by speakers from 13 countries. =20 =B7 Informal Breakfasts: Continental breakfasts will be served Tuesday and Wednesday mornings for unstructured discussions. =20 The conference web site also includes: =B7 Conference and workshop registration forms. =20 =B7 Hotel and travel information. =20 =B7 Sponsorship opportunities. =20 =B7 Exhibition opportunities for the Commercial Exhibition. =20 =20 ------------------------------- David A. Wallace Archives & Museum Informatics 5501 Walnut Street, Suite 203 Pittsburgh, PA 15232-2311 USA voice: +1-412-683-9775 fax: +1-412-683-7366 email: daw@archimuse.com URL: www.archimuse.com ------------------------------- ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 13:37:00 CET Reply-To: Reiner Hartenstein Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Reiner Hartenstein Subject: No Subject PLEASE REMOVE FROM LIST ================================================================= Prof. Dr.-Ing. Reiner W. Hartenstein, Universitaet Kaiserslautern Informatik (CS&E) Bau 12 phone: +49 631 205-2606, fax: -2640 Postfach 3049 http://xputers.informatik.uni-kl.de D-67653 Kaiserslautern, Germany | e-mail: hartenst@rhrk.uni-kl.de HOME: Postf.1744, D-76607 Bruchsal,Germany | Fax: +49 7251 14823 ..._/ _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/ ....._/ ..._/_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ ......._/_/ ..._/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ _/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/ ._/_/_/_/_/ ._/_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ ...._/_/ _/ _/ _/ _/_/ _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ _/_/ ....._/ ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 12:46:45 +0100 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Hobson Sherren Subject: Sokal, objective property of Nature The Sokal debate, + "objective property ...", continued in Italy ... http://www.mir.it/mani/Quotidiano-archivio/21-Gennaio-1997/art61.html > Anche la scienza dipende > Letter from Sokal to D'Eramo published in yesterday's italian daily, il manifesto: > Anche se in ritardo, ringrazio l'amico Marco d'Eramo per l'articolo > sulla mia "beffa" accademica e lo scandalo che ha provocato > ("il manifesto" del 6 novembre scorso), ma mi sento obbligato a > correggere alcune sue affermazioni. > > Non e' vero che "Sokal pensa di aver dimostrato che h falsa l'opinione > ... che ogni teoria umana sia un elaborato umano". Come potrei oppormi > a un'evidente verit` tautologica? Quello che nego h > che la validit` o l'invalidit` di una teoria scientifica, > "propriet` oggettiva della Natura", sia una costruzione sociale. ========================================================================= "What I deny is that the validity or invalidity of a scientific theory, << objective property of Nature>>, is a social construct.>> ========================================================================= > risponde > MARCO D'ERAMO > > CARO ALAN SOKAL, lo ammetto, non sono capace di distinguere tra realt` e > percezione della (e teorie sulla) realt` fisica. Per i miei sensi, > il sole gira intorno alla terra: se affermo che la realt` > oggettiva h un'altra, che la terra gira intorno al sole, >h perchi cosl dice la mia descrizione teorica della realt` > (che tra parentesi contraddice in modo plateale la nostra vista). > Per millenni la realt` oggettiva era un'altra. Per due secoli c'h stato nella >realt` oggettiva un tempo assoluto (quello newtoniano), poi h arrivato Einstein >con la relativit` e il tempo assoluto h scomparso dalla realt` > oggettiva. Ecco perchi mi pare assolutamente sensata l'affermazione che > invece tu irridi e cioh che "la conoscenza scientifica, lungi dall'essere >oggettiva, riflette e codifica le ideologie dominanti > e le relazioni di potere della cultura che l'ha prodotta". > In effetti noi non possiamo dire proprio nulla > che non sia codificato e influenzato dalle relazioni sociali, > proprio perchi tutto cir che enunciamo lo diciamo con il linguaggio. > E il linguaggio h il portato della nostra cultura e quindi dell'ideologia > spontanea che ci plasma. Percir ho enunciato la tautologia per cui > "ogni teoria umana h un elaborato umano". > Non vi sono artefatti umani che non siano prodotti sociali, > determinati cioh dalla societ` che li enuncia. ========================================================================== "There are no human artefacts which are not social products, determined, that is, by the society which enunciates them." ========================================================================== > Cosl, chiedere che la natura sia descrivibile matematicamente, supporre > che "la matematica h l'alfabeto con cui Dio ha scritto la natura" (Galileo), h >una pretesa in senso proprio "metafisica". Chi vieta di pensare che Dio > abbia scritto la natura in un altro linguaggio (o che non l'abbia scritta >affatto)? > > Il pregiudizio positivista fa coincidere "oggettivo" con "vero", > per cui quel che non h oggettivo h falso. Invece che una teoria sia > un prodotto sociale non ha niente a che vedere con la sua verit` o > falsit`. Il punto h che dobbiamo rassegnarci a una ineliminabile insicurezza >epistemologica. D'altra > parte sappiamo tutti che da Goedel e Cohen in poi i fondamenti della >matematica sono problematici. E che anche quelli della fisica sono > traballanti. Prova un po' a leggere la storia della > "fusione fredda" come un'immensa - e ben piy devastante - > "beffa alla Sokal". Vedrai che mostra quanto il colosso della > teoria dei campi delle alte energie abbia i piedi d'argilla pronti > a fondere a temperatura ambiente. SCIENCE-AS-CULTURE. Or no? Ciao, Sherren ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 08:18:20 -0600 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Androlog Mail Subject: Re: Sokal, objective property of Nature X-To: Hobson Sherren In-Reply-To: <9701221335.AA16616@godot> We were email bombed by a fake subscription from our list to about 500 others, including yours. We have attempted to unsubscribe from your list, but cannot. Please remove us. Thank you, Androlog Modertors androlog@godot.urol.uic.edu On Wed, 22 Jan 1997, Hobson Sherren wrote: > The Sokal debate, + "objective property ...", continued in Italy ... > > http://www.mir.it/mani/Quotidiano-archivio/21-Gennaio-1997/art61.html > > > Anche la scienza dipende > > > Letter from Sokal to D'Eramo published in yesterday's italian daily, il > manifesto: > > > Anche se in ritardo, ringrazio l'amico Marco d'Eramo per l'articolo > > sulla mia "beffa" accademica e lo scandalo che ha provocato > > ("il manifesto" del 6 novembre scorso), ma mi sento obbligato a > > correggere alcune sue affermazioni. > > > > Non e' vero che "Sokal pensa di aver dimostrato che h falsa l'opinione > > ... che ogni teoria umana sia un elaborato umano". Come potrei oppormi > > a un'evidente verit` tautologica? Quello che nego h > > che la validit` o l'invalidit` di una teoria scientifica, > > "propriet` oggettiva della Natura", sia una costruzione sociale. > ========================================================================== > "What I deny is that the validity or invalidity of a scientific theory, > << objective property of Nature>>, is a social construct.>> > ========================================================================== > > > risponde > > MARCO D'ERAMO > > > > CARO ALAN SOKAL, lo ammetto, non sono capace di distinguere tra realt` e > > percezione della (e teorie sulla) realt` fisica. Per i miei sensi, > > il sole gira intorno alla terra: se affermo che la realt` > > oggettiva h un'altra, che la terra gira intorno al sole, > >h perchi cosl dice la mia descrizione teorica della realt` > > (che tra parentesi contraddice in modo plateale la nostra vista). > > Per millenni la realt` oggettiva era un'altra. Per due secoli c'h stato nella > >realt` oggettiva un tempo assoluto (quello newtoniano), poi h arrivato > Einstein >con la relativit` e il tempo assoluto h scomparso dalla realt` > > oggettiva. Ecco perchi mi pare assolutamente sensata l'affermazione che > > invece tu irridi e cioh che "la conoscenza scientifica, lungi dall'essere > >oggettiva, riflette e codifica le ideologie dominanti > > e le relazioni di potere della cultura che l'ha prodotta". > > In effetti noi non possiamo dire proprio nulla > > che non sia codificato e influenzato dalle relazioni sociali, > > proprio perchi tutto cir che enunciamo lo diciamo con il linguaggio. > > E il linguaggio h il portato della nostra cultura e quindi dell'ideologia > > spontanea che ci plasma. Percir ho enunciato la tautologia per cui > > "ogni teoria umana h un elaborato umano". > > Non vi sono artefatti umani che non siano prodotti sociali, > > determinati cioh dalla societ` che li enuncia. > =========================================================================== > "There are no human artefacts which are not social products, > determined, that is, by the society which enunciates them." > =========================================================================== > > > Cosl, chiedere che la natura sia descrivibile matematicamente, supporre > > che "la matematica h l'alfabeto con cui Dio ha scritto la natura" (Galileo), h > >una pretesa in senso proprio "metafisica". Chi vieta di pensare che Dio > > abbia scritto la natura in un altro linguaggio (o che non l'abbia scritta > >affatto)? > > > > Il pregiudizio positivista fa coincidere "oggettivo" con "vero", > > per cui quel che non h oggettivo h falso. Invece che una teoria sia > > un prodotto sociale non ha niente a che vedere con la sua verit` o > > falsit`. Il punto h che dobbiamo rassegnarci a una ineliminabile insicurezza > >epistemologica. D'altra > > parte sappiamo tutti che da Goedel e Cohen in poi i fondamenti della > >matematica sono problematici. E che anche quelli della fisica sono > > traballanti. Prova un po' a leggere la storia della > > "fusione fredda" come un'immensa - e ben piy devastante - > > "beffa alla Sokal". Vedrai che mostra quanto il colosso della > > teoria dei campi delle alte energie abbia i piedi d'argilla pronti > > a fondere a temperatura ambiente. > > SCIENCE-AS-CULTURE. Or no? > > Ciao, > Sherren > ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 22:52:44 +0100 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Arie Dirkzwager Subject: Re: Sokal, objective property of Nature At 12:46 22-01-97 +0100, you wrote: >The Sokal debate, + "objective property ...", continued in Italy ... > >SCIENCE-AS-CULTURE. Or no? > >Ciao, Sorry, I don't understand Italian. Translation please? Arie ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 13:31:35 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Robert Maxwell Young Subject: Environmental Ethics and Social Studies of Science & Technology X-cc: h.g.davies@sheffield.ac.uk Helen, please list this under history & philosophy... in the guides `Environmental Ethics and Social Studies of Science and Tech- nology' home page at Tilburg University in the Netherlands: http://cwis.kub.nl/~FSW_2/fww/home/schomber/index.htm (Please note that this URL HAS CHANGED to the aboive one.) __________________________________________ Robert Maxwell Young: robert@rmy1.demon.co.uk 26 Freegrove Rd., London N7 9RQ, Eng. tel.+44 171 607 8306 fax.+44 171 609 4837 Professor of Psychotherapy and Psychoanalytic Studies, Centre for Psychotherapeutic Studies, University of Sheffield. Home page and writings: http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/ Process Press publications: http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/process_press/index.html 'One must imagine Sisyphus happy.' - Camus ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 13:59:09 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Robert Maxwell Young Subject: Environmental Ethics and Social Studies of Science & Technology X-cc: h.g.davies@sheffield.ac.uk `Environmental Ethics and Social Studies of Science and Tech- nology' home page at Tilburg University in the Netherlands: http://cwis.kub.nl/~FSW_2/fww/home/schomber/index.htm (Please note that this URL HAS CHANGED to the aboive one.) __________________________________________ Robert Maxwell Young: robert@rmy1.demon.co.uk 26 Freegrove Rd., London N7 9RQ, Eng. tel.+44 171 607 8306 fax.+44 171 609 4837 Professor of Psychotherapy and Psychoanalytic Studies, Centre for Psychotherapeutic Studies, University of Sheffield. Home page and writings: http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/ Process Press publications: http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/process_press/index.html 'One must imagine Sisyphus happy.' - Camus ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 18:40:58 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: William Markiewicz Subject: The Indos' Enigma THE INDOS' ENIGMA by William Markiewicz My inclination towards Anthropology makes me turn again to this blending of philosophy and history. The history of the Indo-European ethnie is exceptional enough to justify the title. The first enigma concerns origins. While other groups -- ethnic, cultural, racial -- can trace their origins into the far distant past, the Indo-Europeans, as far as I know, don't have this kind of tradition. They appeared as if from nowhere. The first information comes to us from India where they represented an immigrant population -- from where we don't know. Their language, Sanskrit, was already a highly developed old language. What was their archaic language? That is lost in the darkness of time. The second enigma, perhaps linked to the first, concerns the values that the "Indos" brought or didn't bring to history. This ethnie brought dynamics to politics, military strategy, art, science and technology. But they did not bring their own culture, in other words, their own personality. The Indos conquered immense territories, afterwards merging with the conquered populations. They easily assimilated as if they represented a form of energy which integrated into the others' body and spirit. I will try to develop this but first a few words about their probable, most archaic traces. Ancient relics were discovered a few decades ago in Bulgaria. They were fascinating because they were older than anything discovered up to then. In brief, the oldest in the world. We distinguish history from prehistory by the fact that in prehistory, humanity's traces were dispersed and perishable, while in history, humans marked their environment in a permanent way. In other words they built or dug. In Bulgaria, a well preserved metal mine was found. What struck the discoverers was the highly ambitious technical work for such a remote epoch. In addition, there were some rudimentary figures or statuettes, perhaps fertility goddesses because of their exaggerated forms. Generally, prehistoric humanity left cultural rather than technical testimony -- primitive tools, often very beautiful and well ornamented, drawing in caves -- here it was just the contrary. This is what suggested to scholars that these were Indo-European vestiges. Coming back to India, the oldest of the known "Indos" cradles, we find a proverb there which can be applied not only to India: "Power comes from the North and spirit from the South." Power, meaning invasion, came from the North, while spirit -- folklore, mythology -- came from the South, from the Dravidian natives. The invaders became dominators, and members of superior castes while absorbing in their own way the Indian essence, originally Dravidian. Greece, the best known Indo "sample" presents something similar: Relics considered to be archaic Greek belong in reality to the native populations conquered by the Greeks. We don't know which culture the "Barbarians" brought with them, or if they brought any. We only know with what great gourmandise they absorbed their discoveries and with what genius they developed them. Furthermore, Greece gives a very interesting demonstration of what happens when the invaders accepted foreign influence and when they refused it. This particularly relates to Athens and Sparta. Athens has always been very cosmopolitan. Plato travelled a lot in his youth; he perhaps reached India, certainly Egypt. Athens remains for us one of the most perfect political and cultural models of democracy. Sparta's conception was purity and that is why Sparta, not Athens, was glorified by the Nazis. Iron discipline combined with the Spartans' equality in serving the country, pitiless disdain for the weak, foreigners and culture -- that is what characterised Sparta. History judged which of the systems was more viable. Life in Athens was not only more pleasant and more complete, but the power and spirit of Athens survived that of Sparta which slowly withered away. It is curious that cosmopolitan Rome followed in the tracks of Sparta rather than Athens. Alexander the Great probably set the style which became the model: glorification of power. The Vikings left memories of their cult of power. And what about their culture? We know the Viking jewellery, filigreed and ornate, so little corresponding to their robust nature. Their decorated ships, the oldest church in the world -- with a roof surprisingly similar to a Chinese pagoda. "Scandinavia" means, "the country of the Scands." The suffix "-avia" is Aryan and the prefix "Scandi" is not. The Vikings conquered the Scands of which we know nothing other than that they were not Aryans. Could the Vikings have inherited Scandian art? The Greeks and the Romans called the tribes from Northern Europe, "Barbarians", not because they had a foreign culture but because they perhaps had an unelaborated culture. The Egyptians and the Phoenicians were never called Barbarians in the pejorative sense of the word. When the Northerners conquered Rome they didn't assimilate the local culture as was usual in the Indos tradition. Instead they almost completely destroyed it. The Greco Roman heritage survived principally thanks to the Arabs. Europe fell into a black night lasting around 1,000 years. The Crusades, the contacts with foreign cultures, woke Europe from its lethargy. The preceding may show how Western culture and civilization consists, in fact, of the conquest and the assimilation of those conquered. The Indos, by developing scientific method and technology, also brought the concept of domination of nature. For practically all mankind, time had a cyclic motion almost entirely linked to the influence of the Sun and the Moon. The Indos brought the notion of time -- calendar and clock -- to the dimension of human affairs. Simultaneously they absorbed in gourmand style, introspection, which was alien to them. Nietzsche's "magnificent blond beast" brought to the people the dynamic notion of human affairs and drew from them a sense of humanity. As the Indos brought into history undefeated power, the only thing that inspired universal respect, it must have had an impact on political thought. Gobineau was the true father of racism. Nazism brought adoration of Sparta, which hadn't received much attention up to then, with its 'anticulture' (Goering's expression "When I hear the word 'culture,' I pull out my revolver.") and disdain for the weak. The Jews paid the price. What can we foresee for the flow of history in its ethnic perspective? In case of some cataclysm -- nuclear, economic, ecological -- all could begin again in the sense of ferocious ethnic competition. If things continue smoothly, technology may lead to a totally different universe: we will belong either to the group which directs the machines or the mass, more or less passive, of consumers. All will depend on our individual preparation and not on our origins. Technology, naturally, will also put its mark on culture. How it will happen, exactly, we cannot foresee; in any case it will be the end of the ethnic sagas. (from Vagabond Pages http://web.idirect.com/~vagabond) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 13:03:09 +0000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: nestor@SISURB.FILO.UBA.AR Subject: SOLIDARIDAD CON UN SANITARISTA CONTRA EL NEOLIBERALISMO X-To: H-NEXA@h-net.msu.edu, ciberfox@Telcel.Net.VE, marxism-and-sciences@jefferson.village.virginia.edu, marxism-general@jefferson.village.virginia.edu, lvalerio@cariari.ucr.ac.cr, r-caldas@lslsun.epfl.ch, socialhum@ccc.uba.ar --Message-Boundary-5863 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: Quoted-printable Content-description: Mail message body Este mensaje pide solidaridad con un medico sanitarista argentino injustamente cesanteado por el solo delito de haberse expresado publicamente contra la destruccion del sistema de salud publica. El Dr. Norberto Acerbi, un sanitarista con d=E9cadas de trayectoria, cesanteado en 1976 por el regimen militar-neoliberal de Videla y Mart=EDnez de Hoz, fue repuesto como Director del Hospital Finochietto (hoy Presidente Peron) de la localidad de Avellaneda, Pcia. de Buenos Aires, en 1983. El 10 de enero de 1997 fue dejado cesante, brutal e ilegalmente, por un gobierno que continua, a veinte anyos y bajo formas democraticas, la politica de destruccion nacional iniciada el 24 de marzo de 1976. El Dr. Acerbi, amigo personal de quien firma y companyero de largos anyos de militancia politica, carece de e-mail, y no conocemos el e-mail de la gobernacion de la Provincia de Buenos Aires o de su Ministro de Salud. Por lo tanto, enviamos este mensaje a todos quienes deseen acercar su solidaridad, lo que pueden hacer remitiendo una nota de apoyo al Dr. Acerbi a nestor@sisurb.filo.uba.ar. Adjunto una declaracion del Centro de Estudios Nacionales Arturo Jauretche, del que Norberto Acerbi fuera cofundador en los dramaticos anyos de la dictadura militar-neoliberal de 1976-83. This is a message asking for solidarity with an Argentine medical doctor, expert in public health, unjustly expelled from his post for the sole crime of having publicly expressed his opposition to the current destruction of the public health system. Dr. Norberto Acerbi, a public health expert with decades of professional expertise, expelled in 1976 by the military-neoliberal regime of Videla and Martinez de Hoz, was reinstated as Director of the Finochietto Hospital (now Presidente Peron Hospital) in the town of Avellaneda, Province of Buenos Aires, in 1983. He has been brutally and ilegally expelled again, on January 10, 1997, by an administration that continues, twenty years later and under democratic cover, the national destruction policy that begun on March 24, 1976. Dr. Acerbi, a personal friend of mine, with whom I share long years of political struggle, has no e-mail. We don't know whether the Governor of the Province of Buenos Aires, or his Minister of Health have one. We therefore are sending this message to all those who want to bring him solidarity, which you can do by sending a support note to Dr. Norberto Acerbi to the e-mail address nestor@sisurb.filo.uba.ar. A declaration of support to Dr. Acerbi issued by the Centro de Estudios Nacionales Arturo Jauretche, which he co-founded during the dramatic years of the 1976-83 dictatorship, is attached. N=E9stor Miguel Gorojovsky nestor@sisurb.filo.uba.ar --Message-Boundary-5863 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-description: Information about this message. This message contains a file prepared for transmission using the MIME BASE64 transfer encoding scheme. If you are using Pegasus Mail or another MIME-compliant system, you should be able to extract it from within your mailer. If you cannot, please ask your system administrator for help. ---- File information ----------- File: acerbi.txt Date: 28 Jan 1997, 12:26 Size: 2854 bytes. Type: Unknown --Message-Boundary-5863 Content-type: Application/Octet-stream; name=acerbi.txt; type=Unknown Content-transfer-encoding: BASE64 IlJlbGV2byBkZWwgRGlyZWN0b3IgZGVsIEhvc3BpdGFsIFByZXNpZGVudGUgUGVyb24gZGUg QXZlbGxhbmVkYSINCg0KIkVsIG1vZGVsbyBuZW9saWJlcmFsIG5vIGFkbWl0ZSBkaXNjcmVw YW5jaWFzIGVuIG1hdGVyaWEgZGUgc2FsdWQiDQoNCkVsIHBhc2FkbyAxMCBkZSBlbmVybyBl bCBkb2N0b3IgTm9yYmVydG8gQWNlcmJpIGhhIHNpZG8gcmVsZXZhZG8gZGUgc3UgZnVuY2lv biBkZSBkaXJlY3RvciBlamVjdXRpdm8gZGVsIEhvc3BpdGFsIEludGVyem9uYWwgUHJlc2lk ZW50ZSBQZXJvbiBkZSBBdmVsbGFuZWRhIHBvciBkaXNwb3NpY2lvbiBkZWwgbWluaXN0cm8g ZGUgU2FsdWQgZGUgbGEgUHJvdmluY2lhIGRlIEJ1ZW5vcyBBaXJlcywgZG9jdG9yIEp1YW4g Sm9zZSBNdXNzaS4NCg0KTGEgcmVzb2x1Y2lvbiBjb3JyZXNwb25kaWVudGUgaW5kaWNhIHF1 ZSBlbCBkZXNwbGF6YW1pZW50byBzZSBoYSBvcmRlbmFkbyBwb3JxdWUgbGFzIG9waW5pb25l cyBlbiBtYXRlcmlhIGRlIHNhbHVkIGRlbCBkb2N0b3IgQWNlcmJpLCBkaWZ1bmRpZGFzIGVu IHVuIGFydGljdWxvIHBlcmlvZGlzdGljbywgbm8gc2UgY29ycmVzcG9uZGVuIGNvbiBsb3Mg bGluZWFtaWVudG9zIHF1ZSBzaWd1ZSBlbCAnc3VwZXJpb3IgZ29iaWVybm8nLg0KDQpFbiBl ZmVjdG8sIEFjZXJiaSBwdWJsaWNvIGVuIGVsIG51bWVybyBkZSBvY3R1YnJlIHBhc2FkbyBk ZSBsYSByZXZpc3RhIExpbmVhIHVuYSBub3RhIGNyaXRpY2EgZW4gbGEgcXVlIGRldGFsbGEg Y3J1ZGFtZW50ZSBlbCBpbXBhY3RvIGRldmFzdGFkb3IgcXVlIGhhIHRlbmlkbyBlbCBtb2Rl bG8gbmVvbGliZXJhbCByZXNwZWN0byBhIGxhIHNhbHVkIGRlIGxvcyBhcmdlbnRpbm9zIHkg ZGVudW5jaWEgbG9zIHBsYW5lcyBkZWwgQmFuY28gTXVuZGlhbCBkaXJpZ2lkb3MgYSBwcml2 YXRpemFyIGxhIG1lZGljaW5hIHB1YmxpY2EsIGRlc21hbnRlbGFyIGVsIHNpc3RlbWEgZGUg b2JyYXMgc29jaWFsZXMgeSwgZW4gZGVmaW5pdGl2YSwgdHJhbnNmb3JtYXIgbGEgc2FsdWQg ZGUgbG9zIHRyYWJhamFkb3JlcyBlbiB1bmEgZnVlbnRlIGRlIG5lZ29jaW9zIHBhciBhZWwg Y2FwaXRhbCBlc3BlY3VsYXRpdm8gZGUgbGFzIGVtcHJlc2FzIHByZXBhZ2FzLg0KDQpMYSBk ZWNpc2lvbiBkZWwgbWluaXN0cm8gTXVzc2kgZXMgY2xhcmFtZW50ZSB2aW9sYXRvcmlhIGRl IGV4cHJlc2FzIG5vcm1hcyBjb25zdGl0dWNpb25hbGVzIHkgZGVsIGVzdGF0dXRvIGRlbCBl bXBsZWFkbyBwdWJsaWNvIHByb3ZpbmNpYWwsIHF1ZSBnYXJhbnRpemEgbGEgbGliZXJ0YWQg ZGUgZXhwcmVzYXIgdW4gcHVudG8gZGUgdmlzdGEgZG9jdHJpbmFyaW8sIGN1YWxxdWllcmEg ZnVlcmEgc3UgY29udGVuaWRvLCBhIGxvcyBmdW5jaW9uYXJpb3MgeSB0cmFiYWphZG9yZXMg ZGVsIEVzdGFkby4NCg0KU2VndW4gbGEgY29uY2VwY2lvbiBkZWwgbWluaXN0cm8sIHBhcmEg ZGVzZW1wZW55YXIgbGEgZnVuY2lvbiBwdWJsaWNhIGVzIGNvbmRpY2lvbiBpbXByZXNjaW5k aWJsZSBjb2luY2lkaXIgY29uIGxvcyBsaW5lYW1pZW50b3MgcG9saXRpY29zIGRlIGxvcyBn b2Jlcm5hbnRlcyBkZSB0dXJubywgeSBwb3Igc3VwdWVzdG8gbm8gaGFjZXIgcHVibGljYSBk aWZlcmVuY2lhIGFsZ3VuYSwgYXVucXVlIGVzb3MgbGluZWFtaWVudG9zIHNlIGFqdXN0ZW4g YSB1biBtb2RlbG8gcXVlIGNvbmRlbmEgYSBsYSBleHBsb3RhY2lvbiB5IGxhIGV4Y2x1c2lv biBzb2NpYWwgYSBtaWxsb25lcyBkZSBhcmdlbnRpbm9zLg0KDQpQb3IgbG8gZGVtYXMsIGFs IHNlbnlvciBtaW5pc3RybyBubyBsZSBpbnRlcmVzbyBxdWUgTm9yYmVydG8gQWNlcmJpIGhh eWEgc2lkbyBkZXNpZ25hZG8gcGFyYSBsYSBmdW5jaW9uIGRlIGRpcmVjdG9yIGVqZWN1dGl2 byBwb3IgZWwgQ29uc2VqbyBkZSBBZG1pbmlzdHJhY2lvbiBkZWwgSG9zcGl0YWwsIGRlIGFj dWVyZG8gYSBsYSBsZXkgMTEgMDcyLCBkZWJpZG8gYSBzdSBjYXBhY2lkYWQgeSBob25lc3Rp ZGFkIHByb2JhZGFzIGEgbG8gbGFyZ28gZGUgdW5hIGV4dGVuc2EgY2FycmVyYSBwcm9mZXNp b25hbCwgbmkgdGFtcG9jbyBxdWUgc29sbyBlc2UgQ29uc2VqbyB0aWVuZSBmYWN1bHRhZGVz IHBhcmEgZGlzcG9uZXIgc3UgcmVsZXZvLg0KDQpMbyBpbXBvcnRhbnRlIHBhcmEgZWwgc2Vu eW9yIG1pbmlzdHJvIGZ1ZSBkZWphciBzZW50YWRvIHVuIHByaW5jaXBpbyBkZSBhdXRvcmlk YWQgZnVuZGFkbyBlbiB1bmEgZGlzY2lwbGluYSBkZSBjdWFydGVsIHF1ZSBuYWRhIHRpZW5l IHF1ZSB2ZXIgY29uIGVsIGVzdGFkbyBkZSBkZXJlY2hvLg0KDQpOb3JiZXJ0byBBY2VyYmkg ZnVlIGZ1bmRhZG9yIGRlbCBDZW50cm8gZGUgRXN0dWRpb3MgTmFjaW9uYWxlcyBBcnR1cm8g SmF1cmV0Y2hlIGVuIGVwb2NhIGRlIGxhIHBhc2FkYSBkaWN0YWR1cmEuIEVzYSBtaXNtYSBk aWN0YWR1cmEgbG8gY2VzYW50ZW8gYXBlbmFzIHByb2R1Y2lkbyBlbCBnb2xwZSBkZSBFc3Rh ZG8gZGUgbWFyem8gZGUgMTk3NiBwb3Igc3UgZGVmZW5zYSBpbmNvbmRpY2lvbmFsIGRlIGxv cyBpbnRlcmVzZXMgcG9wdWxhcmVzIHkgcG9yIHN1IHBlcnRlbmVuY2lhIGEgbGFzIGZpbGFz IGRlIGxhIGl6cXVpZXJkYSBuYWNpb25hbC4gRG9zIGRlY2FkYXMgZGVzcHVlcywgbG9zIGNv bnRpbnVhZG9yZXMgZGVsIG1vZGVsbyBpbmljaWFkbyBhIHNhbmdyZSB5IGZ1ZWdvIHBvciBs YSBkaWN0YWR1cmEgZGUgVmlkZWxhIHkgTWFydGluZXogZGUgSG96IHZ1ZWx2ZW4gYSB0b21h ciB1bmEgbWVkaWRhIGRlIGlkZW50aWNvIGNhcmFjdGVyIGRpc2NyaW1pbmF0b3Jpby4NCg0K Q2VudHJvIGRlIEVzdHVkaW9zIE5hY2lvbmFsZXMgQXJ0dXJvIEphdXJldGNoZQ== --Message-Boundary-5863-- ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 17:19:46 GMT Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: ylbumurj@SF.EHU.ES Subject: reference on Darwin-Marx At least a concrete reference: * COLP, Ralph (1974) "The contacts between Karl Marx and Charles Darwin". Journal of the History of Ideas, 35: 329-338. where the author surveys most of the "episodes" that have been mentioned in previous postings regarding this relation. A recent treatment of the relation between the ideas of Darwin and Marx (more than between them, and, therefore, more general in scope and more ambitious) can be found in * ALLEN, G. E. (1992) Evolution and History: History as science and Science as History. In M.H. Nitecki & D.V. Nitecki (eds.) _History and Evolution_, Albany, NY: SUNY Press, pp.: 211-239. Jon Umerez _______________________________________________________________ Jon Umerez - Postdoctoral research fellow (Philosophy of Biology) Dept. of Logic & Philosophy of Science E-mail: ylbumurj@sf.ehu.es University of the Basque Country Tel.: 34-43-310 600 (ext. 347) P.O. Box 1249 / 20080 Donostia / Spain Fax: 34-43-311 056 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 11:31:32 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Robert Subject: UNSUBSCRIBE UNSUBCRIBE ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 15:44:39 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Robert Maxwell Young Subject: _Science as Culture_ no. 26 has appeared _Science as Culture_ No. 26 (Vol. 6 Part 1) has now appeared Articles: 'A Spoonful of Blood: Haitians, Racism and AIDS' by Laurent Dubois 'The California Ideology' by Richard Barbrook and Andy Cameron 'Naming the Heavens: A Brief History of Earthly Projections, Part II' by Scott L. Montgomery Reviews: 'Biology as Cultural History' (_Beyond the Natural Body_ by Nelly Oudshoorn) reviewed by Ann Ruidinow Saeman 'Elusive Risk or Planned Threat?'( _Ecological Enlightenment_ by Ulrich Beck) reviewed by C. George Caffentzis 'No Matter Where You go - There You Are!' (_The Power of Maps_ by Denis Wood) reviewed by Don Parson 'Demoraatizing Technology' (_Democracy and Technology_ by Richard E. Sclove) reviewed by David Hakken _SaC_ 27 will include: 'The corporate suppression of inventions, conspiracy theories and an ambivalent American dream' by Stephen DeMeo 'Death comes alive: technology and the re-conception of death' by Karen Cerulo and Janet Ruane 'Inoculating gadgets against ridicule' by Mike Michael 'Sperm stories: romantic, entrepreneurial and environmental narratives about treating male infertility' by Kirsten Dwight In future issues: 'Designing flexibility: science and work in the age of flexible accumulation' by Emily Martin 'Healthy bodies, healthy citizens: the anti-secondhand smoke campaign' by Roddy Reid 'Israel's first test-tube baby' byDaphna Birenbaum Carmeli 160pp. _Science as Culture_ is published quarterly by Process Press Ltd. in Britain: http://www.shef.ac.uk/uni/projects/gpp/process.html and Guilford Publications Inc. in North America: info@guilford.com. For information about subscriptions and a list of back issues (half price to subscribers), go to: http://www.shef.ac.uk/uni/projects/gpp/process.html#science The journal has an associated email forum: science-as-culture@sjuvm.stjohns.edu. To join, send message To: listserv@sjuvm.stjohns Body of message: SUB SCIENCE-AS-CULTURE yourfirstname yourlastname A web site associated with the journal and forum holds articles from back issues of the journal, as well as submissions under consideration (not obligatory), whose authors may benefit from constructive comments for purposes of revisions before the hard copy is printed, as well as longer piece not suitable for the email format which forum members may wish to discuss: http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/rmy/sac.html SPECIAL OFFER: SUBSCRIBE FOR TWO YEARS AND GET A COMPLETE SET OF 26 BACK ISSUES: TOTAL PRICE L100 (British pounds Sterling L1.00 = ca $1.64). EXISTING SUBSCRIBERS: EXTEND YOUR SUBSCRIPTION FOR 2 YEARS AND RECEIVE ANY NUMBER BACK ISSUES AT HALF THE L4.00 PRICE USUALLY CHARGED TO SUBSCRIBERS - L2.00 EACH. This offer stands only as long as stocks last. __________________________________________ Robert Maxwell Young: robert@rmy1.demon.co.uk 26 Freegrove Rd., London N7 9RQ, Eng. tel.+44 171 607 8306 fax.+44 171 609 4837 Professor of Psychotherapy and Psychoanalytic Studies, Centre for Psychotherapeutic Studies, University of Sheffield. Home page and writings: http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/ Process Press publications: http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/process_press/index.html 'One must imagine Sisyphus happy.' - Camus ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 22:18:29 -0600 Reply-To: krickar@comp.uark.edu Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Kenneth Rickard Organization: University of Arkansas Subject: [Fwd: CFP: Science, Metaphor, & Race in America (2/28; 10/30-11/2)] Received: from dept.english.upenn.edu (DEPT.ENGLISH.UPENN.EDU [130.91.75.246]) by comp.uark.edu (8.8.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id XAA12184; Sat, 18 Jan 1997 23:38:36 -0600 (CST) Received: (from root@localhost) by dept.english.upenn.edu (8.8.4/8.8.4) id FAA47494 for cfp-outgoing; Sun, 19 Jan 1997 05:17:13 GMT Message-Id: <199701190517.FAA47494@dept.english.upenn.edu> Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 12:34:59 -0600 From: Kenneth Rickard To: cfp@english.upenn.edu Subject: CFP: Science, Metaphor, & Race in America (2/28; 10/30-11/2) Sender: owner-cfp@dept.english.upenn.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Type: text X-Status: SESSION PROPOSAL--1997 Society for Literature and Science (SLS) Dates: Oct. 30--Nov. 2, 1997, Pittsburgh, PA. BLOOD ON THE MARGINS: Science, Metaphor, and Race in America The one-drop rule that determines "blackness" is peculiar to American society. This panel proposes to examine the intertwining literary, political, and scientific discourses about one's "blood" that serve as a metaphysical and ideological foundation for the American definition of race. This project is part of a proposed dissertation, and my work thus far has covered African-American literature from 1770-1930 (albeit broadly) and the intellectual and political discourse of blood from 1850-1905. Topics might include analyses of specific recurrent metaphors --especially lynchings, blood vengeance, and "mulattoes"--individual literary or scientific texts--especially Herbert Spencer--the role of biology in our understanding of history--Teddy Roosevelt, Herbert Baxter Adams, John Fiske--and legal and social intersections with literary ideas--such as the marvelous essay by Eva Saks on "Representing Miscegenation Law." Papers might cover any aspect of American society, including contemporary texts. Is blood still a vital metaphor for identity in the U.S.? For further information on SLS, surf by http://mickey.la.psu.edu/~hquamen/SLS_97.html For an example of my work, try http://comp.uark.edu/~krickar/career/blood.html The deadline for proposals is February 28th, 1997. -- Kenneth Rickard University of Arkansas For more info, surf over to----------> http://comp.uark.edu/~krickar/