Re: [-empyre-] metaphor

I tend to believe that mathematics was discovered, not invented - and
within this lies, literally, all the difference in the world. - Alan

On Sun, 23 Nov 2003, Joel Weishaus wrote:

> Scientific models work to describe the world for which science is equipped
> to find. The moment mathematics was invented it set this course. But there
> may be worlds that science has not adapted to recognize. After all, science
> was evolved by the brain, and the brain evolved in order to allow our
> species to survive. Science, and its proactive partner, technology, has more
> to do with survivability than the possible spectrum of reality.
> On the other hand, art is not about _how_ to survive, but the _reason_ to
> survive. Thus, in countries that practice institutional violence, like the
> present US Government, science is well-funded, while art is something extra.
>  -Joel
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jim Andrews" <>
> To: "Soft_Skinned_Space" <>
> Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2003 2:16 PM
> Subject: [-empyre-] metaphor
> > It's interesting to think of the role of 'superstition' in science over
> the
> > years and how that has continually been regarded with a dubious eye. Some
> > would think it is no longer present in scientific discourse, but talk
> about
> > such relatively mysterious realms as quantum mechanics is, at least in the
> > popular literature, full of references to shamanism and consciousness as a
> > 'force' that acts upon things. The more scientific training it takes to
> > actually understand the science, the more open it becomes to popular
> > misconception. Literary science? Science fiction or science email? Also,
> > fallacious 'proofs' (Penrose) that humans can do things like solve the
> > halting problem are published and become best sellers. We live in a
> magical
> > time, do we not? Giordano Bruno's time has nothing over on ours, in this
> > regard.
> >
> > The alchemy of poetry and art is, at least in part, in the way that it
> > operates metaphorically in such a way as to make it profoundly resonant
> with
> > the inner world. Its truth is of a different kind than the truth sought by
> > science. Are the propositions of science, couched within mathematical
> > abstractions, essentially metaphorical in that they are directly about the
> > abstract models and only indirectly about 'a way the world is', or are the
> > mathematical models in some fundamental correspondence with 'the way
> things
> > are'? We can amass experimental evidence to the point that, for instance,
> > the existence of the atom, as described in the mathematical models, can
> > hardly be contested, yet our conceptions about it are necessarily models,
> > metaphors. So perhaps our understanding is necessarily metaphorical in its
> > operations and there will always be this diffusion of superstition through
> > science, which nonetheless seeks some objectivity from the vaguely
> personal.
> > To imbue stones with consciousness, to postulate an animistic universe, is
> > quite resonant with the inner world, isn't it. Whether it is a hypothesis
> > that is of any use in science is another matter.
> >
> > It is probably like the question of how many angels can dance on the head
> of
> > a pin. That is my feeling, also, about the question of free will vs
> > determinism. The question of how many angels can dance on the head of a
> pin
> > involves assumptions that are not required in science (angels) and the
> > 'answer' is inconsequential to science. The question of free will versus
> > determinism, in popular thinking, often involves the assumption that an
> > algorithmic model of how thought operates limits thought in ways that
> cannot
> > be demonstrated.
> >
> > ja
> > (kinetic poetry with soul)
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > empyre forum
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
Trace projects

This archive was generated by a fusion of Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and MHonArc 2.6.8.