From: Paul Turner (paul@turnerbc.co.uk)
Date: Sat Jul 23 2005 - 15:41:55 BST
Mati,
>Humans knew about time space long ago as it became part of the social level
>as it evolved. It marked the seasons, or a life time etc... Time and
>space
>as scientific abstract ideas have further established with advanced
>scientific methods. Today with the advancement of such methods we can
>speculate on patterns of time and space that seems to defy the real world
>as
>we know it. (i.e. timemachines)
Paul: I don't disagree with this. I agreed with Scott recently when he
said that space and time were evident in social patterns.
>I will regress briefly to suggest the social and intellectual values are
>born to our abilities as humans to reflect values. An example of social
>values of time and space might be identification of constellations and
>their
>placement. This process of consciousness that made this possible was pretty
>sophisticated for its day, but it did not represent an intellectual value.
>The reason being is the "value" of identify constellation was still based
>on
>and reflected the social mythos of the day. If the Greeks such as Plato
>and
>Aristotle can be credited for SOM in that time period then something
>interested can be speculated. With the advent of SOM we have birth of
>scientific method (based on the objective approached) that allows us to
>push
>the understanding of such values as time and space to a new level. But
>regardless of how far that knowledge goes it is tethered to have meaning to
>us (the subject) to have any value. I can't think if any scientific
>advancement that didn't have to answer the question, "So what is in it for
>us as humankind." To find an answer requires an intellectual reflection
>based mostly on reason. Failure to provide a reasonable response is a
>failure in the value of such a science.
Paul: Agreed, but, as I understand it, Bo's SOL idea is not about intellect
being defined by humans asking "What's in it for us?" I think he is saying
it's the opposite i.e. humans trying to discover an objective reality - as
it is *independent of* the supposed subjectivity of humans. If anybody was
asking "What's in it for us?" I would think it was the Sophists. "Man is
the measure of all things" was something Plato was railing against, wasn't
it?
Regards
Paul
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jul 23 2005 - 18:04:00 BST