LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives


SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives


SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE@LIST.UVM.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Home

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Home

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE  March 2013

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE March 2013

Subject:

Re: Being In The World

From:

"Romsted, Laurence" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Science for the People Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 6 Mar 2013 05:47:48 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (217 lines)

Tadit:

I want to respond directly to you rather than through the responses of
others, e.g., Kamran, Charles Claudia and Carrol.  Kamran came close to
understanding where I am at about the video, that is, I am na´ve about the
philosophy that was being discussed.  I don't know much about Heiddeggar,
for example, I am not aware of the other philosophers in the video and I
don't think in my response that I said that I did.  I have not read or
discussed very much about philosophy since college, although I did at that
time.  I continue to read political philosophy periodically.

I tried to indicate that I thought I understood, felt even, the parts
about creativity and the object one was working on becoming part of
oneself.  That is very real to me.

I think of my science as my art.  I think my art is my science.  I don't
follow recipes in my research, I create them, i.e., models of physical
reality.  I am part of the ideas I work with and my modest contributions
of new ones to science in general are am expression of myself, although
the ideas (models) become independent of me when they work their way into
the scientific community.

I have contributed to the development of the models for the self-assembly
of surface active molecules in solution, surfactant micelles,
microemulsion, vesicles, and emulsions.  People, mostly other scientists
in my field, understand better why surfactants speed and inhibit chemical
reactions better because of my contributions, and perhaps why some
surfactant solutions turn viscous when certain salts are added, but not
others.  It is my art, it is part of me and I am part of it.

But, just like it is a sign of racism and sexism when science buildings
are filled primarily of white males (the number of women is increasing
rapidly, but not the number of blacks) so, it is an odd kind of
discrimination when the philosophers in the video were all white males.
That speaks of a potential social problem in the practice of philosophy to
me.  I have no idea how broad it is.

The other thing I want to say is that I was not writing from any
authority, I was writing mostly questions and concerns about what seemed,
to me, to be missing from the philosophical discussion in the video.  How
can one discuss reality and leave out the large social realities that we
all live in?  I found that strange. I would have been very interesting in
their critique of materialism or Marxism, for example.

I really liked the guy working with wood because I like working with
materials with my hands myself, although about the only object my hands
touch currently is a keyboard.

I was not trying to piss you off Tadit. And I had not intended to offend
you and was surprised that I had.  In some ways I appreciate the intensity
of your response.  It means you care deeply.  I simply intended to give
you a feel for my response to the video.  I do feel that you so
overreacted that you almost did not hear me, and instead dived into
pejorative argument.


Also, let me add, Kamran writes is a language I can follow.  Your response
to him, to the contrary, was extremely difficult for me as was your
response to me.

How about this, if you do not demand too much philosophical understanding
from working chemists, I will not demand too much understanding of
chemistry from philosophers.

Deal?

Maybe we, you and I, can do better next time.

Larry
 



 

  

On 3/4/13 11:11 AM, "Tadit Anderson" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>I am both astonished and embarrassed by your PC simplicity and
>essentially  
>your neo-liberal posturing, which apparently is presumed to exempt you
> from grasping the project represented by "Being In The World." It may be
> 
>that your portal to history and art, apart from your laboratory and
>classroom, is so narrow and essentially conformist that you are unable to
> 
>suppose any other basis for "critical thinking." If you find my words
>offensive, I assure you, it is less offensive than your dismissal of
>"Being In the World" seemed to me.
>
>Of the "masters" interviewed the majority are of nominal minorities
>relative to the standards of white western Euro heritage. A Gypsy
>musician, a Japanese carpenter, a female juggler, a female cultural
>critic/speaker, two Afro American chefs, and several Afro American
>musicians. True, the professional "philosophers" as a category are all
>white males, AND are not the masters, as presented, also philosophers
>besides? One of the major points of the film is that the philosophers are
> 
>admitting the perverseness of the philosophical and cultural dominance
>represented by Plato and Plato's legacy, and effectively the nature of
>imperialism thereafter.
>
>To the nature of your PC dismissal, Art is generally interpreted both in
>the context of the artist and of the culture to which and in which it is
>produced. One of the top layers of intent is to honor Hubert Dreyfus's
>resistance to the culture of technological over-reach. The project of the
> 
>video is also to focus upon a body of work still in progress.
>
>It has remained darkly comic for me to realize the apparent short
>distance  
>for many nominal progressives and socialists to an ideological rigor
>mortis and surrender to its own reproduction of corporatism. Beneath this
> 
>is an absence of standards over the assertion of authority by presumption
> 
>of the authority conferred by an academic degree or by the publication of
> 
>something that appears to be a book, though absent much validation of the
> 
>sacrifice of cellulose to pretense beyond profit and other varieties of
>self interest.
>
>There is certainly room in the broader context to discuss Marx's
>contributions in a kindred direction, and there are intrinsic limitations
> 
>to doing art, rather than reproducing a deification and theology in a
>manner that is contrary to the limits of the theme and its production.
>Your response in this context would have been much more authentic if that
> 
>had been the basis of your effort rather than toward taking down and
>discrediting "Being In The World."
>
>My own disappointment with the production were in honesty minor though
>significant, such as in tacitly accepting the over-writing of the
>philosophies of Parmenides as "pre-Socratic," when in their time
>Socrates,  
>Plato, and Aristotle were factually post Parmenidean, and that part of
>Heidegger's and Gadamer's projects were directed to resurrecting
>Parmenides and the contributions of his cohorts and students, including
>Zeno. And I am willing to over-look such details for the greater value of
> 
>the effort.
>
>Further, the absence of mention of Hannah Arendt's conditioning of social
> 
>and ideological capacities, is also a technical deficiency, though
>acknowledged in principle.
>
>Your response to a large degree exemplifies the imperial nature of
>pop-level progressivism, absent much in the way of social capacities or
>of  
>the socialization obliged. Enough.
>
>in disappointment for SftP, Tadit
>
>
>
>On Sun, 03 Mar 2013 23:37:35 -0500, Romsted, Laurence
><[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> Tadit:
>>
>> I watched much of the video.  Thank you.
>>
>> Some of the discussion was interesting, especially about the parts about
>> what becoming creative feels like and how ones work becomes part of and
>> 
>> an
>> extension of oneself.
>>
>> But there was an unreality about it all:
>>
>> All the philosopher's were white males, I think.  No blacks, no asians,
>> 
>> no
>> women.  Weird.
>>
>> The political economy that we all live in seemed to be outside of the
>> reality they discussed or was just part of it with no particular
>> consequence.
>>
>> They talked about many philosophers over time, but never Marx, never
>> Engels, etc.  How can they leave such a large hole in their discussion?
>> They did not even explain why they might think them wrong.
>>
>> They spoke and discussed like there were no social classes that we are
>> born into and must deal with.  What class one is in has an enormous
>> effect
>> on ones view of the world and ones sense of what is possible and what it
>> means to be creative in ones work.
>>
>> I bet lots of corporate CEO's feel creative.  Never mentioned.  There
>> seemed to be only two levels, working with ones head and working with
>> ones
>> hands and always acting as individuals.  It is like no one ever
>>organized
>> to do anything, which of course, manifestly part of human reality.
>>Labor
>> struggles, wars, running governments, building global corporations.
>> People in power struggles.  Not part of the reality considered.
>>
>> Larry
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 3/1/13 1:04 PM, "Tadit Anderson" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>> This video has a major contribution to the nature of theory, science,
>>> technology, and simply being in the everyday world. Excellent
>>>production
>>> as well.
>>>
>>> https://vimeo.com/45403954

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
May 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LIST.UVM.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager