[Osx-nutters] The separation of church and state.

[David Cake]

At 6:29 PM +0000 6/12/07, Stefano Mori wrote:
>On 2007-Dec-06, at 13:56, Jared Earle wrote:
>
>>On 6 Dec 2007, at 13:52, Chris Gehlker 
>><<mailto:canyonrat at mac.com>canyonrat at mac.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Dec 6, 2007, at 6:09 AM, LuKreme wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On 5-Dec-2007, at 23:42, David Cake wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>but the mistake that Mark (and others) are making is in thinking
>>>>>
>>>>>that its religion that is special. Its not - its science that is
>>>>>
>>>>>special. Aesthetics, ideology, ethics, religion, most spheres of
>>>>>
>>>>>human thought outside the scientific, ultimately fall back on the
>>>>>
>>>>>individuals subjective experience and intuition.
>>>>>
>
>
>Er, no, not quite.
>
>I mean, I know it seems obvious... but it leaves out something massive: We.
>
>This is why the three domain of I, We, It (Subjective, 
>Intersubjective, Objective) are three aspects of one overall thing, 
>existence as a whole.
>
>A human mind cannot develop the way it does without other human 
>minds to interact with.
>
>I notice none of us are sitting at home just emailing ourselves. OK, 
>maybe SOME of you are... nutty bastards, but look at what we're 
>doing... we're somehow trying to discover some sort of clarity and 
>insight, by talking and arguing with each other.
>
>The inter-subjective domain is of tremendous importance. And it's 
>just as special as science, which is busy doing stuff in the other 
>domain of objectivity.

	Actually, this seems to kind of not a useful distinction. The 
mechanisms of science involve a great deal of human interaction and 
social mechanisms, and humans being humans this will necessarily 
involve a great deal of subjectivity in reality, but science strives 
to make this an exchange of partial objective viewpoints.
	I'd suggest that its better to rename your intersubjective as 
merely interactive, and you'd get a much clearer picture.
	One of the basic human interactions, trade, doesn't really 
require there to be subjective differences in the value people place 
on things, for example - objective differences (this is cheap to me 
because I have plenty of it nearby, it is expensive to you because it 
is hard to find and/or mostly far away) are enough to make trade 
appealing and necessary.

>Science is "special", the way you're using it, in the sense that 
>it's narrow. It only focusses on certain kinds of problems that are 
>easily quantifiable and testable. But try using science to decide on 
>love and it's way out of it's depth. Science can't even register the 
>phenomena involved.

	No, what makes science special is not that it restricts its 
subject matter, or that it is inapplicable. You'll find that, say, 
Marxism doesn't tell you much about love either, or sport, or 
photography or art theory or classical music (they all might have 
their little incomplete bit to contribute to the understanding of 
love, but so does science).
	What makes science special is its epistemological status - 
how it claims its basis for knowledge. It rejects the subjective as a 
basis for truth.
	Cheers
		Daviod
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.tit-wank.com/pipermail/osx-nutters/attachments/20071210/aa609adc/attachment-0001.htm