Paul H. Dillon writes:
"The truth of the moon that the scientist give us is not the truth of the
moon of the poet gives us but neither invalidates the other. My
understanding of scientific truths concerning the moon (e.g., that a full
moon on the winter solstice, such as the one on Dec. 22, 1999, occurs in
conjunction with a lunar perigee and will therefor appear about 14% larger
than it does at apogee, ie summer solstice) does not prevent me from
appreciating the poem that captures in verse the personally lived experience
of that bright, bright moon as in:
The moon in the water
Turned a somersault
And floated away.
What makes some humans think we are so special and unique as to be beyond
the scope of determination; what could be so special about humans that our
behavior, including our emotions, is not be capable of being comprehended
in scientific concepts?"
Paul,
I am not convinced, and it seems to assume that "scientific concepts" are
somehow less "folk" than a poem's description of the moon. We seem to accept
that the poet's description of the moon is a product of culture and
subjective experience, but are less inclined to assume the same of
"scientific concepts". Maybe it is the poet being put against the scientist
that bothers me as with "scientific concepts" the subjective can be held in
check.
When we say the scientist and the poet both give us a truth, what do we
mean? It can be so easy to read this as a subjective-objective divide that
I do not find very useful. The truth of the scientist or "scientific
concepts" ought not be a truth that transends the cultural-historical or
subjective experience. Where "scientific concepts" become dangerous is when
they are reified as if they were natural and objective which somehow
transends cultural-historical activity. While I would agree that both give
us a truth of sorts, I think they are more alike than different.
For example, there seemed, at least for me, some parellels between the later
Margaret and Stanton's research method. Maybe this is what Diane was
getting at, that somehow for it to be scientific, there has to be a
detachement of sorts from the content(schizophrenic IMHO). I don't think
this approach is any less subjective than the poet, but it also naturalizes
the subjective in the objective. Maybe wrongly, I sensed this in the
research (activity setting) in that it allowed Margaret to look at her
history more scientifically,rationally, objectively etc. The structure of
chapters served this purpose somewhat in that Margaret could become detached
from the narrative itself and get a more "objective" view of the her
history. As Margaret does this, the earlier unity of narrative and narrator
(victim) is seen in a negative light or at least something to transend.
Margaret's experience is being re-narrated in a particular way that is no
less subjective than the earlier narrative.
I guess I would ask what makes us think that we are so special as humans we
can have a "objective" (detached) view of something that is subjective
(cultural-historical) at its core.
"The chief defect of all previous materialism ... is that the thing,
reality, sensuousness, is conceived only in the form of the object or of
contemplation, but not as sensuous human activity, practice, not
subjectively." And on the other hand: "Hence in opposition to materialism
the active side was developed abstractly by idealism, which of course does
not know real sensuous activity as such." (Marx 1945)
Are not "scientific concepts" merely naturalized subjective experiences. How
can the tools we use to view the world be severed from the world itself.
Those concepts do not come from "no where" they come from sensuous human
activity.
Nate
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 11 2000 - 14:04:07 PST