who controlls the ICBM's. It takes one dominionist officer fallowign the president to start WWIII
Good thread, Jesse.
The black-humor, shit-in-your-face, irony of the warpimp Tabernacle Choir now singing this "It's all Iran's fault" chorus, is that a drooling idiot could see that yanking the lid off the factional pressure cooker that is Iraq, would be a dead lock that Iran would come out of this with MUCH enhanced power.
That these bloody-handed dingbats, INCLUDING Colin Powell (He of the despicable dog-and-pony show at the U.N.) did NOT understand that, is a perfect yardstick for their "futurist" abilities, and it should be one HELL Of a campaign-issue stick for the democrats to beat them with, every time they start offering the "evidence" of how we really, really, need to do Iran.
Arrrrrghhhh....!
One thing that would demonstrate that we do not in fact "create our own reality" would be the screaming fury with which a huge chunk of the rest of the world would turn against us if we used nuclear weapons on Iran. I wouldn't be surprised if the ensuing mayhem caused the USA to split up into the four "natural countries" that the affluence and complacency of empire has been artificially holding together all these decades.
If it weren't for the JCS and Admiral Fallon, the attack on Iran would have happened already and the USA would right now in October 2007 be on the tobaggan-slide to Sheol if not already well there.
Loveandlight: more then for...the great lake states have very little in common with the east or the midwest. the east,then the south east, would be one (old CSA - texas who would run off on their own, + tennesse and kentuky) then texas as a nation, soem sort of western nation cnetered on denver and then eiter one west coast nation or two with cali off on its own (or part of cali i could see thet state split). alaska may join the PNW or canada, or try to make it on its own (wouldn't work) hawaiai woudl be left to fend for itself.
Every person who disagrees is replaceable.
moonglum:
Perhaps I should have said "at least four". I could also envision a situation in which every state goes its own way and perhaps a few clusters of neighboring states would form confederations. My hope in that situation is that Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota could become Canadian provinces. 
My hope in that situation is that Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota could become Canadian provinces.
I second that emotion, and look forward to my promising new life in West Windsor (Detroit). Hell, our governor's already Canadian.
Hold the line, indeed.
Bad Thought™: Why do I think we should be taking bets on how long it will take before he's forced out?
Tanbark, ouch.
As a soon-to-be professional futurist, I need to point out here that anybody with real chops in the field could have drawn a diagram on the back of a napkin in about 90 seconds flat that would have illustrated quite clearly what was going to happen here.
Cheney himself isn't that stupid: remember, he was a also explaining this, in print and on TV, back in the early 90s, before he started wearing The Ring full-time.
On the other hand, you never know about those RAND guys. A lot of modern futuring techniques were generated at RAND in the 50s; but they now train their own folks there, and most of what they do is quant stuff -- they're really in love with computer modeling and a lot of high-level complexity theory. And Stormcrow will be the first to tell you why that gives you, ahem, a skewed view of things.
They're not big on history and cultural factors, which is where the real juice is. This blind spot reveals a real problem within the culture of the military-industrial complex: they're so in love with technology that they refuse to even consider any factors that might not respond to it. And if they can't make a computer model of it, it's probably not important. They pay lip-service to social engineering, but it's not "manly," and certainly not what an army does. So they give it short shrift -- and the rest of us pay the price for it.
Generals smart enough to make to the JCS have usually gotten themselves past this. But grognards like Cheney have spent entire decades absorbing their views of the future from the think-tankers at places like RAND, and their view of how the world works is colored by it considerably.
They're bad futurists. Plain and simple. Because they allowed ideology to give them tunnel vision to the point where they missed something that was so very easily forseeable.
Bad bad bad.
All Iran has to do is change its name back to Persia and problem solved. No Iranian threat, no Iranian nukes..........
My hope in that situation is that Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota could become Canadian provinces.
We can only hope!!
We won't see a coup. We won't even see resignations from the high officers. What I'd bet we're going to see is "Yes, Sir!" obedience. And then a very slow, meticulous attention to detail. Excruciatingly meticulous. So meticulous that days, weeks, and months tick off the calendar. "Yes, sir! We're almost ready, Sir! Within a week at the most! Oh, by the way, that carrier is now due for refit. But the next one will be on station next month!"
Etcetera. It's the only clever way to stop this -- to agree to it and then gum up the works long enough to get the insane clown posse out of town.
Einstein did to physics; making it recursive by demonstrating when an Observer is present, the wave-form function collapses, leaving a world literally caused by the collapsing of the wave-form.
I believe that this is wrong. That appears to my untrained eye (I'm an engineer, not a physicist) to be quantum mechanics, which Einstein did not like, and never quite got his head aroud.
We create our own understandings [and misunderstandings] of reality, but of course we do not create reality itself. The natural universe existed before it contained any intelligent life to observe it.
Mrs Robinson: you are of course assumeign that an out come of WWII, a distoryed american empire, a fall of civilization as we know it is a bad thing to the guys in charge.
these are guys wwho jerk off to the thaught of armegedon...who think they cna force the second comming in their life time......
yes you are correct, attackign iran is as bad as bad could be, it would distroy this nation and set the world back 100's of years.....
We have a dommi in the white house, they have been infiltrating the military for decades, even if the JCS are nto true beleivers it only takes a handfull at stratgic locations to end civilization as we know it.
I hope Jesse and stickler are right, but from my non-military background, I'd bet on them just following orders.
C'mon Moonglum, Wengler, Stickler...
the notion that the petroborgs PLANNED this gigantic fuckup and PLANNED to be looking at a GOP political debacle in 2008, to match the one they've made in Iraq, is nonsense.
And if you don't THINK it's going to be a debacle (Unless the dems are stupid enough to nominate a candidate who thinks that Iraq isn't a mistake, and who won't beat the repubs like a rented mule for creating it) then explain yourselves, and let's talk about that.
Your bud, Tanbark. :o)
Well, I'm into creating a little reality of my own and it goes a little something like having faith in the jsc and a slew of SANE military members in key positions that will gum up the works when that order comes down. And I think it could very well come down ..... again.
Good post, Jesse. More proof of just how insane they are.
Tan ole buddy, them boys above got a point to make about a plan and an 'INTENT' methinks . . . and MNSHO is that the level of 'planning' per se, is evident from PNAC's Position Paper, and began with Newt's Contract On America.
With plenty of history BEFORE that to now connect the dots tween the Bush Family, Saudi Arabia, the MIC, the war machine/arms industry and corporate america.
The curve goes back to the '20's . . . and revolves around socialists, White and Black Russians, and their influences on Leo Strauss and HIS influence on our presidency's and arms dealers of the times.
So in a sense, yes, this has all been planned.
That it's NOT going to plan, is a whole 'nutter matter! *G*
And I DO believe, the use of nukes on the MidEast and the drum of Onward Christian Soldiers v. IslamoFacism was ALL part of the plan, long ago in the early 90's.
Now, as folks here, and other places point out, it's a really loosey goosey game and any number of insignificant things might trip the trigger.
On the large scale, only Russia and China and the JCS have saved us so far.
On the small scale, Cheney has the War Powers BoyKing gave him, and black ops are a real and threatening fright for us all given the christianization of our USAF, which is WELL documented . . . . As I recall, Mellon and Fallon are NOT USAF!!!
And I pray (snicker) there's a REASON for that.
But this is shit we all know . . .
Where are we today? . . . we are NOW in the realm of the day to day anxiety . . . with no discernable and definitive outcome yet.
Pins n needles make for the interesting times we live in. And I doubt this will change much, till next November's election.
Do I think this group of whacko's are gonna go quietly?
NO WAY!
Will there be a confrontation within our government and our mlitary and the general masses?
I think, yes, for sure . . . . and only the largesse of that confrontation is left to be debated, and that's not possible at this point, as we are on pins and needles, and day to day.
Stay tuned!
For these ARE interesting times, and they are gonna continue at least till next November, barring the largesse of any confrontations that emerge . . . I don't think even Shilary can get the military to do Iran, or use nukes. And SHE will not have the pull that Cheney and the neocon's have . . . and she WON'T let the Fundie's run her down THEIR rabbit hole, either . . . and that's the ONLY good thing I have to say about Shilary. Our deaths from her reign will be a slow one from her thousands of cuts upon the masses . . . but we will die and forsake our futures under her corporatist and facist leadership.
isn't the Cheney title supposed to be '...officially TEH ugly...'?
Myrtle June, I hope you're right, but you have to admit things are really, truly fucked when we're counting on the generals and admirals to keep us OUT of war.
This thing could go so many ways. I may take heat for this on a liberal blog, but honestly, in addition to writing your congressmen -- if you're not doing that right now you're insane -- is to pray. Seriously. I can't think of a time when the world has been so endangered in my lifetime, probably not since the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Well hey, it was nice knowin' y'all. I'll be sure and look you up in the celestial phone book if indeed there's a hereafter.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Mid...t/
IJ26Ak06.html
We create our own understandings [and misunderstandings] of reality, but of course we do not create reality itself. The natural universe existed before it contained any intelligent life to observe it.
Ivory Bill Woodpecker -
I bet your pardon, but you are stating as fact, that which is the crux of the question or issue at hand.
You insist there is a reality, independent of the observer.
I refute that claim, and say "What is said can under no circumstances be separated from the person saying it." I say this claim is so from the standpoint of biology, from the standpoint of physics, and also from the standpoint of human experience. Here it is again:
"What is said can under no circumstances be separated from the person saying it."
Let us begin to examine this claim together.
Here are selected excerpts quoted from Chilean neurobiologist Humberto Maturana, Ph.D, from his latest book, From Being to Doing:
Chapter 1. Without the observer, there is nothing
Everything that can be said is said
Maturana: What is said can under no circumstances be separated from the person saying it. There is no possibility of validating one's own assertions with regard to an observer-independent reality the existence of which is, in addition, considered as evidently given. nobody can claim to have privileged access to an external reality or truth.
Poerksen: But there are innumerable people who would claim that their ideas are true and absolutely valid.
Maturana: correct. Nevertheless, all those who think that their assumptions are true in an absolute sense, make a fundamental mistake: they confuse believing and knowing, they claim to have abilities that they, as human beings, simply cannot possess. Of course, it has become accepted in our culture to distinguish between the observer and the observed, or between subject and object, as if there were a difference between the two, as if they were distinct. If this is assumed and accepted, we are immediately confronted by the task of describing the relation between these two supposedly independent entities with greater precision. My contention to the contrary is that this distinction is unhelpful, and I would like to show to what extent all observers are part of their observations.
Poerksen: What are the consequence of such a position for our ordinary conception of knowledge? Out there, by common sense, exists a world of objects determining what we perceive and describe. What happens to this external reality if we take your key proposition seriously?
Maturana: The very assumption that this external reality exists independently from us will immediately show itself to be a fundamentally absurd and nonsensical notion: it cannot be validated in any way. There are, of course, philosophers who accept that it is impossible to know that absolute reality but who still insist on its existence. They do not want to give up the certainty of an observer-independent point of reference as part of their background.
Poerksen: This would mean -- following Protagroas --: The observer is the measure of all things.
Maturana: My claim is even stronger: The observer is the source of everything. Without the observer, there is nothing. The observer is the foundation of all knowledge, of any assumption involving the human self, the world and the cosmos. The disappearance of the observer would mean the end and the disappearance of the world we know; there would be nobody left to perceive, to speak, to describe, and to explain.
Poerksen: The first distinction we make is, therefore something like the Big Bang of knowing, the origin of the construction of a reality. There must be a distinction in order to be able to see anything at all.
Maturana: Exactly. Only what is distinguished exists. Although it is distinct from ourselves, we are nevertheless tied to it through the operation of distinction. Whenever I distinguish something, the entity that is distinguished emerges together with some background in which the distinction makes sense; it brings forth the domain in which it exists.
Chapter 2. Varieties of objectivity
Life in the Multiverse
Maturana: We must not forget that the notion of a reality existing independently from us corresponds with the belief that it is possible to achieve authoritative, universally valid statements. These may be used to discredit certain kinds of experience. It is the reference to this reality that is held to make a statement objective and universally valid; in a culture based on power, domination and control, it provides the justification for forcing other people to subject themselves to one's own view of things. However as soon as one has realized that there is no single privileged access to reality, and that perception and illusion are indistinguishable in the actual process of an experience, then the question arises what criteria can be used by a human being to claim that something is the case. The very possibility of posing this question opens up a space of common reflection, a sphere of cooperation. The other person becomes a legitimate other with whom I am able to talk. Friendship, mutual respect, and cooperation emerge. It is no longer possible to demand submission; the universe changes into a multiverse within which numerous realities are valid by reference to different criteria of validity. The only thing one may now do is to invite the other person to think about what one believes and holds to be valid one-self.
Poerksen: This means that we have two fundamentally different positions. One claims that all knowledge is observer-dependent, the other, that an observer-independent reality can be perceived. Both positions have their different consequences and lead to specific approaches to the environment and to other people.
Maturana: There are two distinct attitudes, two paths of thinking and explaining. The first path I call objectivity without parentheses. It takes for granted the observer-independent existence of objects that -- it is claimed -- can be known; it believes in the possibility of an external validation of statements. Such a validation would lend authority and unconditional legitimacy to what is claimed and would, therfore, aim at subjection. It entails the negation of all those who are not prepared to agree with the "objective" facts. One does not want to them or try to understand them. The fundamental emotion reigning here is powered by the authority of universally valid knowledge. One lives in the domain of mutually exclusive transcendental ontologies: each ontology supposedly grasps objective reality; what exists seems independent from one's personality and one's actions. The other attitude I call objectivity in parentheses; its emotional basis is the enjoyment of the company of other human beings. The question of the observer is accepted fully, and every attempt is made to answer it. The distinction between objects and the experience of existence is, according to this path, not denied but the reference to objects is not the basis of explanations, it is the coherence of experiences with other experiences that constitutes the foundation of all explanation. In this view, the observer becomes the origin of all realities; all realities are created through the observer's operations of distinction. We have entered the domain of constitutive ontologies; all Being is constituted through the Doing of observers. If we follow this path of explanation, we become aware that we can in no way claim to be in possession of the truth but that there are numerous possible realities. Each of them is fully legitimate and valid, although, of course, not equally desirable. If we follow this path of explanation, we cannot demand the subjection of our fellow human beings but will listen to them, seek cooperation and communication, and will try to find out under what circumstances we would consider to be valid what they are saying. Consequently, some claim will be true if it satisfies the criteria of validation of the relevant domain of reality.
*****
Jesse: What you just read were selected excerpts from Chapters 1 & 2 of From Being to Doing, a series of conversations between the renowned Chilean neurobiologist Humberto Maturana, Ph.D., Professor of biology, founder and director of the Laboratory for Experiential Epistemology and the Biology of Cognition.
I've been studying Maturana since the 1980s, both in his books, on video tape, and I have seen him lecture in person. I am convinced what he is saying is a theory of biology which is universally correct, grounded, explanatory at a deep level, non-trivial, and so crazy and threatening to everyone as to quite likely be valid. He is I believe to biology and thus to medicine, genetics and even systems theory, what Einstein was to physics -- he who makes it totally circular and puts an observer into the irreducible heart of the conversation. Indeed, what was blasphemy has now become the posited heart of physics -- that modern physics does not describe some natural world "out there" but instead is a conversation between physicists inventing distinctions for having conversations between physicists.
How I say it is, there is no such thing as a natural universe, independent of an observer with a biology speaking in language, distinguishing. If there were, how could we know; and who is anyone to claim such magical knowledge and on what basis do they make such a nonsensical claim? Talk about not grounded in the reality-based world!
One might as well say, "The universe rests on the back of a giant tortoise, which itself rests on the back of another giant tortoise, and so on, and so on. There is no end to the turtles; they recurse endlessly downwards, sideways, and indeed in every direction. Indeed to perhaps to even speak of up and down in the void, is to speak of directions which are meaningless. And (addressing the question as to what the bottom turtle would stand on), as the old woman said to the renowned scientist, "You shan't trick me, it's Turtles, turtles, turtles, all the way down."
And thus I refute the Turtle world. There must be an observer. *smiles*
tanbark: i doubt at this poitn things are going as planned...im sure the dommis thaught that they would be shown by god to be right by now and we would all be happly fallowign their lead...but they are moillinialists and like all melinialists they get more desperate and mroe dangerous as the time to be proven wronge closes in. Back in the 50s' or so they predicted armegedon in their life time...the clock is tickeing. they thaught bush and the right wing congress was their christian nation to lead to christofacist dominion of the eatrh....the rest of us should have seen the light by now (or have been shown ot be demonic) and fallen in line.
thsi hasen't happend, they are panicing, there will be at least one last desperate grasp at the brass wring before they go away like all melinilaists do. Unfortunaitly for us a lot of the military and the president are dommies so that last desperate grab has soem power behind it.
Leo Strauss. Got so badly scared by the early successes of the Nazis that he figured (not being a Communist) the only defense against it was a Nazi-lite government, maybe with a Goebbels but no Hitler, Himmler or Heydrich.
A lot of people who encountered the horror of the Nazi regime close up and survived came away with nutty ideas, as well they might. That sort of excuses him, but not his worshippers, let alone their intellectual descendants.
SteveT spoke a good post, about having to count on the generals and admirals to keep us OUT of war.
But I DO believe that the american voters have reached the saturation point with the koolaid-bullshit martinis. And the GOP knows it, and these next few months leading into the election will move with a petty pace that Shakespeare could NOT believe.
It's going to be kharmic payback, for, say...waterboarding. :o)
But we ALSO need leaders to articulate that righteous anger, and if the ones we have don't start doing that pretty soon, then we just might wind up with Tweedle Dum, to run against Tweedle Dee.
And if that happens, it will mean that the beltway democrats and their already-annointed choice are going to shave points like the most corrupt NBA team that never got caught for doing it.
And we WILL be well and truly fucked.
My fervent hope; nay, DEMAND, is that the primaries go forward and that the issue of whom we nominate be allowed to be debated at least into the late spring, by which time, the Iraq-turd sitting in the leading candidates' soup tureen will have festered and ripened into a corpse the size of a dead mastodon, and no amount of discussion about health care, or equal pay for women (as important as those are) will be able to hide it.
And, of course, the repubs feets are VERY much in the fire, and soon, they, and their candidates, are going to have to decide if they want bush up on Mt. Rushmore, or if they want him on that barbecue spit on the white house lawn, for all of us to have a crank.
:o)
A few questions come to mind:
Does anyone think that Iraq is going to improve to the point that one or all of the republican dwarves (or the current leading democratic candidate, for that matter) will start churning out the talking point:
"SEE! I was right all along about voting for the invasion...AND about staying the course ON that vote!"
Shorter question: Does anyone think Iraq is going to "stablilize" before the election?
I didn't think so.
And: Does anyone think it's not going to be the biggest issue in the campaigns and the election?
I didn't think so.
(That is, unless we get hit again; but if that happens, won't it be OK for our candidate (IF he or she doesn't mind bringing it up...:o) ) to ask if the clusterfuck is really making us safer?)
One of the reasons that bush and the shithouse rats have been able to escape a full-on firestorm for what they've created, is that so far, the only inarguably direct impact on us has been on the americans who've had loved ones killed or wounded.
I think that is going to change. Oil spiked at $92 this morning. I know that the oil companies are eating most of the increases, rather than INSTANTLY pass them on, with interest, as if a democrat were in office, but how much longer will they do it?
As with the congressional repubs, corporate america is going to have to weigh the value of bush as "statesman", against his value as sacrificial goat.
I think that most of us on here would agree that there are going to be some serious economic dues to pay for bush's handing the keys to the U.S. Treasure to Halliburton and the Fortune 500. The question is, when will they come due?
Because, just like Iraq, if the warpimps can get out of town without the petrodactyls (intentional spelling error...) coming home to roost, then they can largely skate out of the responsibility for this. ESPECIALLY if the democrats nominate a candidate who doesn't believe that invading Iraq was a mistake, and therefore can't come after them with both barrels.
As we all know, the MSM has whored themselves out to whitewash practically every aspect of the war. And since, because of the war, the entire conservative world-view is hanging by a thread, they are going to be turning "tricks" for a nickel a pop, and speaking bullshit about many, many, other issues, any one of which could be the card that, when it's pulled, could bring down the warpimp house.
What a year it's going to be...
:o)
The Turks are upping the ante:
http://apnews.myway.com//article.../
D8SH0MIO0.html
Must be nice to be sitting at the table with three bullets up, and the case Ace for your hole card. :o)
Very well, Jesse, [and Dr. Maturana] if nothing exists independent of the observer, then the natural universe could not have come into existence without some living thing to observe it. Now, what living thing existed to observe it? It can't be anything on Earth, certainly, since the Solar System evolved out of a nebula or something like that, which already existed in the natural universe, hence that Universe existed before our Solar System existed in it.
I sense Dr. Maturana means well; he's trying to pull the rug out from under authoritarianism by denying its claims to knowledge, and I suspect that's why you find his argument attractive. Alas, I think y'all are throwing out the baby with the bath water.
I doubt the validity of much of modern particle physics and cosmology.
I do accept the existence of protons, neutrons, and electrons, as those have been demonstrated in cyclotron experiments.
I also accept Einsteinian time dilation and mass increase at high speeds, as those have been proven in experiments in cyclotrons and with spacecraft.
However, much of modern particle physics and cosmology is now based purely or almost purely on theory, with precious little experimental or observational evidence to back it up.
Alas, due to the nature of these disciplines, which deal with either very large or very small objects, and events that occur over very short or very long periods of time, observation and experiment are often impossible. In the absence of those things, the active minds of physicists can hardly help but turn to speculation, but I fear some of them have forgotten that it IS speculation. There is such a thing as becoming intoxicated with one's own cleverness.
I fear much of modern physics has fallen down Alice's rabbit hole, and I hope neurobiology does not follow it.
Oh, and the fact that an idea sounds crazy and threatening makes it MORE likely to be valid? Then why isn't Dominionism true? It's certainly a crazy and threatening ideology.
The conversation is too long to have in comments.
Go get a copy of Dr. Maturana's book, read it, and then we'll argue.
Right now I'm trying to get ready for a trip out of town to visit my mom.
I do understand your concern, but nothing I'm saying negates scientific method -- retired paramedic, duh. What you are worried about are strawhorses, all of which I can take apart easily. I just don't have the time to deal with any of it today. As I said, I've been studying this stuff 20 years.
Go get the book. You're the only person who has actually expressed an interest, so I suspect you'll dig it. *grins*
Laters,
No.
Jesse, you seem to be seriously confused about the distinction between general relativity and quantum mechanics- enough so that a mere layman can detect it. That seems a poor return for twenty years of study.
An even poorer return is to use all that effort to slip into what smells very badly of some sort of pomo solipsism.
But what they hey- I'm fine with people believing that external reality doesn't exist in some peculiar philosophical sense. It leaves more room for people who examine reality to have an effect on it.
Good on Mukasey. We need sensible people at the helm. God knows we haven't had such at the political wheel of late.
[reminiscing of Rummy, and those weird run-on sentences he was fond of]
Ktesibios --
Sorry -- I failed to put in an error correction the first time I commented. Everyone is correct. I was in a hurry when I was posting up. It wasn't Einstein who did Quantum Mechanics. My bad.
As for your comment, believing that external reality doesn't exist in some peculiar philosophical sense. It leaves more room for people who examine reality to have an effect on it.
I'm a retired paramedic who worked as a flight paramedic. I assure you, nothing like both gravity and death to make things very very real. That isn't what I'm saying nor what Maturana is saying, nor in any way is this solipsism.
I'm always shocked, genuinely shocked, when a long-time reader such as IBW simply refuses to examine the evidence, refuses to go read a book. Really?
It isn't as if he needs to purchase the book. There's this new invention called public libraries which would, no doubt, be more than happy to acquire for him, a copy of this book for him to take a look at.
When someone tells me, someone whose opinion I've been reading for months and months and months, that there is a scientist whose work is radically changing an entire field and this is what I can read, I'm excited by that. It truly shocks me when people tell me -- WITHOUT HAVING READ THE MATERIAL FOR THEMSELVES, and furthermore -- WHILE REFUSING TO READ THE MATERIAL -- that they know it is wrong, while taking lame shots at both me and the scientist I am talking of, a distinguished gent with a significant and well-respected track record.
I had one of our regulars tell me a few months ago I should read a book. Wasn't up my ally, but I went out and bought it. Could have got it from the library. Never would have thought of some of the stuff in that book, but now it informs my understanding of an entire field.
I guess I'm privileged -- as I'd say are Sara, Hubris and Lower Manhattanite -- as all four of us constantly receive emails from many of you suggesting we read this, try out that, or check out the other thing. And while we simply can not look at everything, I know I find my understanding of life, of the news I report on, and of the interconnections I am able to make, is vastly enriched by my reading as much as possible of that which is recommended to me YOU folks -- the regular readers on the blog. If y'all suggest I look at something, I do my best, and normally, it pays off.
This is in part, actually, what Maturana is saying, now that I think of it. (I hadn't intended to go there, and I need to leave to catch an airplane.) He says and I agree, that rather than one fixed world which can be known by some universal outside observer, an idea for which there is zero operational support in day to day life (bring me this universal all-seeing observer please; may I suggest you talk with the Rev. Dobson -- that kind of thing is right up his way of thinking), but instead, we talk with other human beings, not from a position of universal authority ("You must accept what I say!") but instead from a position of two beings negotiating boundaries and seeing what the other has to communicate.
This seems to be valid behavior both in cellular biology and in human behavior.
What Maturana is saying threatens at a deep, deep level, people who have a lifetime invested in an other way of thinking, based on authority and an external fixed reality. That much I will certainly grant. And of course, to the extent someone is unwilling to listen, one can not make them communicate nor will I try. *smiles* Just as nothing in the "new physics" in the end, said Newton was wrong (he was just a special case), nothing here says the current understanding is wrong (it is just a special and limited case.) The more universal case requires, as we do in physics, that we take the observer into account when we measure. Otherwise the very act of measuring (distinguishing) is thrown off forever by the fact of having an observer in the frame. If you fail to account for the act of distinction, you fail to account for much which is interesting (and ultimately inescapable) about our day to day life and biology, and how it and us come forth into life.
This stuff is as legitimate and well-grounded scientifically as anything I know. And I believe, well worth anyone's time who is genuinely interested in learning.
Ultimately, I don't care what anyone else thinks about Dr. Maturana. I've done my own studies, and thought this through for myself. This is why I'm recommending to people here at GNB who trust my judgment, that here, there is genuinely something worth reading and learning from.
Every single objection to date is based on a limited understanding of my poor explanation. This is a complex conversation, which is why I say it can not be carried out in comments. The conversation starts with the willingness to read what he's talking about, and engage with it in its own set of distinctions. Otherwise, one is simply engaging a work one fails to understand, using the language of the old world to invalidate the new. It would be as if horseless carriage makers attacked Ford for failing to include a Buggy Whip, while refusing to learn about the mechanics of how a piston engine work, or indeed, acknowledging that there might even be a field called automobiles, insisting that the entire conversation was simply a case of a Carriage Maker run a muck. To grasp Maturana, people will actually have to study, reflect, and think for themselves, leaving many of the familiar sign posts behind. It is not easy, simple, nor for the faint of heart. It is, however I believe, worth it.
Anyway, I must run. I've a plane to catch.
See everyone next week.
OK, I was a little abrupt.
I should have said, "No, thank you".
However, even if Maturana turns out to be the greatest thing to hit biology since Darwin, I simply cannot be bothered to care. I have lost interest in doing any hard labor, mental or physical.
This life is over for me. I simply am marking time, one year or 50 years, whatever, taking what harmless pleasures I can take, doing what little good I can do, until Miss Ankh shows up, hopefully to take me to a better world.
This world is no longer my home, if indeed it ever was.
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
