File spoon-archives/bhaskar.archive/bhaskar_2002/bhaskar.0209, message 87


From: "Wendy Olsen" <wendy.olsen-AT-man.ac.uk>
Subject: BHA: RE: Jokes about Materialism and Entanglement
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 21:47:30 +0100


This is a multi-part message in MIME format.


Dear listers,
Jamie is clearly referring to the wonderful appendix of Andrew Collier's book, _Being and Worth_

lovely pun

where Andrew Collier argues that Heidegger's work can be interpreted thus:  we engage with the world in order to both better understand it _and change it_ -- but sometimes this involvement exceeds its proper bounds and becomes entanglement.  Entanglement is then defined by Heidegger and stressed by Collier as inhibiting our ability to perceive clearly (and then express) the most important aspects of the world which need to be perceived under current human circumstances.  This argument of Collier's is a firm grounding for pluralism of method in economics and other social sciences, and it helps 'modellers' and theorists to see that they should best conceive of their models as fallible abstractions, subject to seriously erroneous conceptualisation but also susceptible to social change right under our very noses.

In the UK today I think gender relations are changing under our noses (23% of mothers live as cohabiting partners not as married!) yet the theories in feminism and sociology of gender are a little bit behind . . . arguing furiously, I'm glad to say.

Sorry to give a light example . . . no I'm not, sometimes this list is very heavy. But I liked Jamie's pun a lot.  I do feel strongly that serious argument is needed at this time.  I find in my own work that the ontic turn is all very well among realist readers but it is easily rejected (completely, due to incomprehension plus epistemological chasms) by those outside this magic circle.  Let's hope the circle is penetrable (as open systems theory says it is).

Wendy  Olsen


  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Jamie Morgan
  To: bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
  Sent: Friday, September 13, 2002 2:50 PM
  Subject: BHA: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Materialism etc.


  You're right Phil, it takes two to tango, I therefore, and pardon the pun, disentango.

  Goodbye for now,
  Jamie

HTML VERSION:

Dear listers,
Jamie is clearly referring to the wonderful appendix of Andrew Collier's book, _Being and Worth_
 
lovely pun
 
where Andrew Collier argues that Heidegger's work can be interpreted thus:  we engage with the world in order to both better understand it _and change it_ -- but sometimes this involvement exceeds its proper bounds and becomes entanglement.  Entanglement is then defined by Heidegger and stressed by Collier as inhibiting our ability to perceive clearly (and then express) the most important aspects of the world which need to be perceived under current human circumstances.  This argument of Collier's is a firm grounding for pluralism of method in economics and other social sciences, and it helps 'modellers' and theorists to see that they should best conceive of their models as fallible abstractions, subject to seriously erroneous conceptualisation but also susceptible to social change right under our very noses.
 
In the UK today I think gender relations are changing under our noses (23% of mothers live as cohabiting partners not as married!) yet the theories in feminism and sociology of gender are a little bit behind . . . arguing furiously, I'm glad to say.
 
Sorry to give a light example . . . no I'm not, sometimes this list is very heavy. But I liked Jamie's pun a lot.  I do feel strongly that serious argument is needed at this time.  I find in my own work that the ontic turn is all very well among realist readers but it is easily rejected (completely, due to incomprehension plus epistemological chasms) by those outside this magic circle.  Let's hope the circle is penetrable (as open systems theory says it is).
 
Wendy  Olsen
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From: Jamie Morgan
To: bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Sent: Friday, September 13, 2002 2:50 PM
Subject: BHA: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Materialism etc.

You're right Phil, it takes two to tango, I therefore, and pardon the pun, disentango.
 
Goodbye for now,
Jamie
 
 
--- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005