Date: Sun, 28 Jun 1998 19:13:02 +0800
From: David Geelan <bravus-AT-innocent.com>
Subject: Re: PKF: Let there be


Jeffery wrote:
 
> >On Thu, 25 Jun 1998, David Geelan wrote:
> >
> >{snip}
> I did NOT suggest that reason
> >> should not be applied everywhere - in fact, of course, reason MUST be
> >> applied everywhere: we can't function without it. What I did suggest was
> >> that scientific ('technical') rationality is not appropriate in all
> >> contexts, and that there are others.
> 
> Okay, what I am trying to figure out is if there is anything different than
> instrumental reason- which is generally how scientific reason is described.
> When we say things like "reason must be applied everywhere, we can't
> fuinction without it," it suggests an instrumental approach to the
> conception of reason.  He helpds us function, means that we use it as an
> instrument to get from a to b.
> But maybe not, I question myself as I write this.

In that sense, I think all reason is instrumental - it is applied to
human purposes. But human purposes go beyond simply control over natural
processes and the gaining of food and shelter. Human purposes include
creating and understanding the meaning of texts, creating and
maintaining relationships, creativity and music and art. Reason serves
these purposes, they do not serve it.

The rationality of Picasso as he painted 'Guernica' or Mozart (or
Bartok) as he composed is, I'm submitting, qualitatively different to
the rationality applied in devising the Periodic Table or the
classification of species. The example Carsten provided of the
rationality of Voudun is, in my opinion, somewhat 'polluted' by the
perspective of the author, who wishs to render Voudun 'scientific' to
some extent. Yes, the loas are real entities to the Haitians, in the
same sense that God is real to many Christians - and I think Carsten
under-estimates the extent to which that occurs. This does not mean, in
my opinion, that the rationalities applied to the possession phenomena
of Voudun *by the participants* is the same as that applied to the
search for subatomic particles (although the latter seems more and more
voodoo-like by the day!)

In summary of both this post and the one in response to Mr Marburg, I do
believe that everything humans do is rational from their own perspective
(and therefore instrumental for their purposes), and I don't believe
that all rationalities can be reduced to a technical rationality.

There's another question, of course - what is the survival value of what
we're doing here? (This discussion?) What is its value, if it is not for
survival? What human purposes drive us to spend time in this activity?

Regards,

David

-- 
David R. Geelan, Science & Maths Education Centre, Curtin University
GPO Box U1987, Perth, WA, 6107. Ph: +618 9266 3594 Fax: +618 9266 2503
Home Page: http://alpha7.curtin.edu.au/~pgeelandr/bravus.htm
Perfect love casts out fear. 1 John 4:18
**********************************************************************
Contributions: mailto:feyerabend-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Commands: mailto:majordomo-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Requests: mailto:feyerabend-approval-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu