lisa.rogers at m.cc.utah.edu
Wed Jun 7 19:36:50 MDT 1995
Ron, and the rest, I hope you didn't think that I wrote the "proposition"
below, it was the Boddhi! I disagree with it, except that I'm not
entirely sure what was meant by it.
As for the art gallery, I always walk closer and farther, and closer, and
farther, watching the brushstrokes disappear into the larger picture as I
back up, and then the picture resolve into separate strokes as I
approach. Science is not limited to any single view alone. Reality
as a whole encompasses innumerable views, sub-atomic and satellite views.
On Tue, 30 May 1995, Ron Press wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Lisa Rogers
> <EQDOMAIN.EQWQ.LROGERS at email.state.ut.us
> A proposition therefore: perhaps science is, in fact, not
> characterized by consistency at all, but by inconsistency. It
> seems to me that philosophy is the effort to create consistency
> throughout human thought, whereas science seeks only to embrace,
> as precisely as possible, the immediate and definably external,
> and create consistent relations there
> Although I have no serious disagreement with the above statement I
> do not think either philosophy or science are always either
> consistent or inconsistent.
> I would suggest a better way to look at it is as follows.
> One is in an art gallery. There is a picture on the wall. The
> philosopher stands back and tries to get the overall view. The
> scientist gets closer and closer to the canvass and views the
> It is the same picture for both, and both have an incomplete
> picture. The picture raises emotions in both but they are
> different emotions. For the philosopher the detail gets in the
> way. For the scientist the detail is the picture.
> Both are right and both are wrong.
> Ron Press.
> I try to get both views and become confused.
> --- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---
--- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---
More information about the Marxism