[ like Durkheim in The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life, Marx takes the position that we do not organise our social life in a specific way because we believe certain things or hold certain ideals, but rather we believe certain things or hold certain ideals, because we organise our social life in a specific way.... we are also “primed” by dimensions of our social practice, in Marx’s argument, to be receptive to notions of a material world governed by universal laws - this priming no doubt tells us something about the timing of the historical emergence of a particular style of scientific enquiry, but it would be a category error to jump from this historical insight, to any immediate judgement on the truth or falsehood of particular scientific claims...Nevertheless, where we can demonstrate...that we might be primed by social practices to experience a form of thought as familiar, we can be conscious that we might find that form of thought persuasive, because it is familiar - as resonating with our existing habits of perception and thought - as being something we “recognise” as salient, without being fully aware of how or why. Fragmentary Ontological Temptations from Roughtheory.org by N Pepperell]
[After 30 years of listening to the sterile science/religion debate i am utterly bored with the refrain that “my superturtle is better than yours”. To achieve progress, i set out to see how far we can go in describing the deep properties of the physical universe without appealing to anything outside it — such as an unexplained transcendent god or an unexplained set of magicallyimposed mathematical laws. I concede that, so long as we are stuck with human modes of thought, we will ultimately have to accept something on faith, but i see no reason to stop with the laws of physics. After 300 years, the time has come to seek a theory of the laws, to bring the laws of physics within the scope of scientific inquiry. The writer is director of Beyond, a research centre at Arizona State University. -- A matter of faith Paul Davies times of india.com Monday, 18 February, 2008]
[Admittedly, the range within which I acknowledge mental activity as competent and beyond which I reject as superstition, fatuity, extravagance, madness, or mere twaddle, is determined by my own
— Michael Polanyi (1962, 318-19)] 7:03 AM 8:08 AM
[Do we, out of an intense desire to see the world the way it should be, deliberately misread the way it is? The recent debate around Raj Thackeray’s pronouncements about north Indian outsiders in Mumbai is centred around the inappropriateness of his remarks and the transparent nature of the political game he is playing in inciting the local Maharashtrian population... The fear that we don’t want to know the truth gets further validated by the kind of media coverage we see on television...The desire to believe in our own ideals about democracy made it very difficult for us to digest Modi’s undeniable popularity. We can see the same story repeated in the deep conviction that a section of society has about the stupidity and regressivenes of the saas-bahu serials; a conviction that has been decisively exposed as being ridiculous by their continued popularity for years now. In fact, more often than not, when major social issues are polled, the results tend to confound our cosy assumptions about what people want. Because something is incomprehensible and offensive to one section, because it militates against a particular worldview, it is deemed to be an aberration. We then look for ways to deny the significance of that occurrence, hiding behind all possible ways of interpreting information that justifies our worldview. This wilful blindness is an effort to keep the illusion of stability and order intact. It is also an imposition of one point of view on the rest of us. At the heart of the problem lies a fundamental contradiction about democracy. It depends on the wisdom of people but can in no way guarantee it. If the country were to be run on the basis of opinion polls, chances are that India would be a very different kind of place. Conditioned as we are to blindly trumpet the power of democracy, we get stumped when we see it turn upon ideals we hold dear. We try and deal with this by denying what we see. We argue with reality, we try and browbeat it into some kind of submission. But reality festers in the shadow of neglect and it is only a matter of time till we are forced to acknowledge it. The real question is, do we really want to know the truth? santoshdesai1963@indiatimes.com CITY CITY BANG BANG What we don’t want to know SANTOSH DESAI times of india.com Monday, 18 February, 2008]
The Savitri Era worldview, with its presupposition of the Divine (not, God), avoids many epistemological errors and the ensuing ontological nightmares. "The real question is, do we really want to know the truth?" [TNM]