Martin wrote :
<snip>
> Where is the
> problem? It seems to me this type of debate and ongoing "hermeneutic spiral" is precisely what
> we have all been doing, in any case. As Roy Bhaskar points out, epistemic relativism does not
> condone judgemental relativism. If nothing else, our sanity requires us to assume that, given
> alternative models of the same phenomenon, one or another would seem to be closer to the
> reality that each attempts to outline. But this does not mean that any of them is a good fit
> and so the pursuit of understanding goes on - in the spirit of free debate.
Thanks for summing up the position like this,Martin.I wouldn't argue with any of
what you say,as a general overview or framework,and I think it's helpful to keep such a
broad perspective in mind,as a solid scaffolding from which to reach out toward speculative
possibilities.
Certainly,even admitting or welcoming relativism,we still don't get presented with
an_infinite_ number of interpretations,do we,and in practice,it's probably fairly easy to
make a choice,even if only in a manner similar to guessing the odds at a horse race.
(I think it's worth mentioning that individual experience and integrity must come into
the picture somewhere,even if unquantifiable.)
As I understand it,some of the 'solutions' on offer regarding how we might choose between
a variety of interpretations include social or individual constructivism,which,if I've
understood rightly,mean roughly that either there is a broad consensus of peers,or,
in the case of an individual,the evidence 'fits' into a coherent personal worldview.
(I find both of these difficult to accept,for a number of reasons,but that doesn't matter
for the moment).
What struck me,was "If nothing else, our sanity requires us to assume that,..".
As I understand it,one of the reasons why humans tend to be so resistant to accepting
uncomfortable new ideas,is that we all have a vested interest in maintaining a coherent
worldview - whether individual or shared - for our daily survival.Anything 'too radical'
(like alien visitations) is a kind of Trojan Horse which could disrupt essential coherence.
One could see 'insanity',very loosely,as a disintegration of a person's worldview.
If (and a big 'if',because I'm not convinced) consciousness is henceforth to be regarded
as a quantum phenomenon (or should that be plural ?)that turns the paradigm around
a bit,to say the least.The implications would appear to be rather disruptive of many peoples
conceptual legacy.We live in interesting times...
Chris.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|