Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 16:46:46 -0800
Subject: PKF: Re:


>Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 16:17:30 -0800
>To: "Russell Sears" <siv9_-AT-hotmail.com>
>From: Terry Bristol <bristol-AT-isepp.org>
>Subject: Re:
>Cc:
>Bcc:
>X-Attachments:
>
>>Nice one T. B.
>>
>>I much appreciated your swift and highly interesting reply.
>>
>>My interests in philosophy are mainly political and ethical so I could
>>relate to much of what you spoke of. It is precisely for this reason
>>that I am having problems adjusting to write a philosophy of science
>>essay, of course there are links but when talking about anarchism I want
>>to go off on a political one.
>>
>>The comments about PKF's 'position' being self-referentially paradoxical
>>were most useful. I see now that this is at the heart of my essay. Would
>>I be right in saying that his view could be seen as self-defeating in
>>that it allows positions that would deny it - hence the paradox!
>
>I wouldn't put it that way.  The paradoxically inclusive position is the
>real, mature PKF.
>
>It certainly opposes the "naive anarchism" - where all fascist/ideological
>positions are to be purged and suppressd.  The naive anarchism is really
>very close to what happen, and what went wrong in the Soviet Union.  The
>eventual position (Stalin) argued against all "individualistic leadership"
>-- since this is what was supposed to lead to new class divisions, etc.
>So all attempts to establish a new program with a direction different from
>radical anarchism (classlessness) were suppressed.  "Leadership" was seen
>as the enemy of the socialist state.
>
>Anyway, without going on about it, naive anarchism is self-defeating
>because it becomes impossible to develop anything to maturity.  All
>attempts to bring new (incommmensurable) value to maturity are seen as
>class-creating and "against the revolution".
>
>Likewise individualism/capitalism is self-defeating via its arrogance;
>the initially successful program suppresses all innovation, and of course
>tend toward monarchy or aristocracy.
>
>For PKF all these forms have a place in history.  They have all proved
>their merit by bringing important, uniqur value into the world.  But each
>form, taken by itself will be self-defeating.
>
>The paradoxical position with its mature insight is the only "solution" --
>at this level of analysis.  In a way, it is a non-position however.
>Somehow one feels that it lacks guidance -- at least universal guidance.
>And I think that was what PKF liked most about it.  History says "anything
>goes" (as far as strategies of bringing good/value into the world) and
>that should be our guiding principle for the future.  BUT everyone needs
>to understand the wisdom of the paradoxical position:  this is basis of
>the tolerance of diverse positions, without taking THAT too far either.
>
>>To concentrate on science this would mean that his "anything goes"
>>allows the views of those who see there being a correct scientific
>>methodology to stand. He both allows and condemns the logical positivist
>>position for example (?)
>
>Yes.  The key is to understand the "wisdom" of the paradocical position.
>At first it may sound stupid and down right contradictory to allow these
>conflicting positions to live in the same system (or non-system, if what
>you mean by system entails consistency).
>
>But since there is no RIGHT answer, this paradoxical position is the only
>reasonable position.
>
>Socrates asks:  How should we live?  There are two pole in the answers: a)
>there is no answer and b) my answer (etc. all the specific political
>structures, cf. Aristotle).  PKF want to see these as individualism
>(anarchism, viz. no GROUP answer) versus all the various group organizing
>principles.  Then the psoition is:  let them all live together.  One way
>to represent this is to see the two poles as axes of a graph:  horizontal
>axis is individualism and the verticla axis is socialism (artistocracy,
>democracy, meritocracy, etc.).  The two axies define a space:  the space
>of all possible systems of organizing or not organizing "how we should
>live".
>
>>Another way in which he could be self-defeating:
>>How about the idea that in claiming a distinction between the 'crank'
>>and the respectable thinker he is actually asserting that not everything
>>goes. He is defeating himself. I haven't read enough of his stuff to
>>know if this would be a fair criticism.
>
>This was a tough area for both PFK (the anarchist) and Lakatos (the
>fascist).  They had what we call a "Tom and Jerry" act along these lines.
>Each camped out one extreme and argued for it, but in reality each knew
>that the other held a part of the truth that was not included in their own
>position.  How then does one make decisions/judgments in specific
>cases??????
>
>If you have ever been a parent you can easily sympathize.  Aristotle
>called it the "agony of deliberation":  you are a best friend yet an
>essential authority figure.  Which is the correct role at any given
>moment???
>
>The genuis/crank issue (really separate) is largely unsettled.  When/if
>you have had the opportunity to deal directly with people who are REALLY
>mentally ill you will experience the agony of this judgement.
>
>>I agree with much of what PKF says it would seem, but I have to be able
>>write a critical essay. This is quite a head wreck.
>>I hope that I am not coming accross as ignorant or stupid to you, when
>>I've finished this essay I'll plant a few seeds about my way of thinking
>>in a proper E-mail to you. For now I wonder what you make of what I am
>>working on so far.
>>
>>I will go and see what a book by D.Stove has to say against PKF now.
>>Appreciate your correspondance brother,
>>
>>Siv
>>(self-referentially paradoxical - any reference?)
>
>Not anything easily accessible.  You might look at the last chapter of
>James Burke's book The Day the Universe Changed; this accompanied the BBC
>series of the same name.  He doesn't name PKF but that is the topic.  Also
>Connections, his earlier series is really Western Civilization ala PKF.
>
>>Travellers of the world unite, for we all voyage together.
>>
>>______________________________________________________
>>Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>
>
>


**********************************************************************
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