Psybertron Asks

Interesting post from Sam Norton. A thoughtful Christian positioning on recent “blasphemy furies”. Amongst other things I was taken by this quote from Rene Girard.

“The invention of science is not the reason that there are no longer witch-hunts, but the fact that there are no longer witch-hunts is the reason that science has been invented. The scientific spirit … is a by-product of the profound action of the Gospel text.”

Seems difficult to reconcile that with the image of subversion of scientific texts dramatised in “The Name of the Rose” and assorted bonfires of the vanities – but yet again we are really talking about the difference between enlightened understanding of a belief system vs misguided things done it its name – not to mention subsequent misguided reactions to such belief systems based on misunderstanding it on the basis of those very things done in its name.

On a very brief reading of the Girard reference Sam provides, I can also feel a parallel between his avoidance of “taking offense” and Follett’s integration of differences (as opposed to resolution of differences). Not to mention Argyris’ avoidance of giving and receiving embarassment, and his distinction between “espoused theories” and “theories in use” and of course Brunsson’s “necessary hypocrisy” …. I could go on.

Also of great interest is Girard’s use of the word mimetism (mimetic) for “contagion”. Precisely the same mimesis etymological root as “memetic” – artificially re-constructed by Dawkins to rhyme audibly and visually with “genetic”. Mimicry, contagion, replication, infection. Inescapable. So much social-anthropology / evolutionary-psychology (pragmatic-reality, yes even “science”) is to be found in etymology.

Perhaps I should explain, why I’ve hardly posted recently.

I’ve barely had time to read anything except news stories for about two weeks. I’ve been active off-line and face-to-face in Cambridge with a group of people keen to make some real-world progress taking a discussion forum onto a new level, corresponding, preparing for, participating and documenting ideas coming out of that. Several entirely sleepless nights, but too soon to go public.

And I had a long weekend away – celebrating our birthday (Sylvia and I are consecutive days) the big “Five 0” in my case.

Oh, and we’ve been making preparations for a possible major domestic move, which I can’t say much more about yet.

Clear as mud, no ?

The change at Enlightened Caveman, morphing into Enlightened Living, from Chris Wilson’s personal blog to a new group blog, is somewhat clearer after a recent hiatus.

The Rev Sam Norton, fellow MoQer and Blogger has had his views on the unsustainablity of international food trading taken up by The Grauniad and The Beeb, not to mention Murdochvision.

In the same vein as sacramental Peyote and Funghi being used in enlightenment circles, here we have Amazonian herbal “Hoasca Tea”, containing DMT, being consumed in a ceremonial context notice.

The story is the US Supreme Court has sanctioned it’s use in response to an attempted federal ban.

Latest news on Google in China is about some bureaucratic hiccup, but the censorship story hits the headlines again …

Google, together with other major technology firms, has [] come under fire in the US for helping China censor the internet. Earlier this month, members of the Congressional Human Rights Caucus said four US firms were putting profits before American principles of free speech.

[But] Google’s policy of telling users which pages are censored has also drawn the wrath of some [local] newspapers. “Does a business operating in China need to constantly tell customers that it’s abiding by the laws of the land?” asked the China Business Times, comparing Google to an uninvited guest.

The overt censorship actually reminds the community it is being censored by the laws of the land. Take it from there.

Also from Mark Federman, a piece on research he is doing on organisational effectiveness. The point that interested me, apart from the general parallel with my agenda, and my earlier dissertation is his focus on Chris Argyris “espoused theories” concept – ie the idea that they are different to actual “theories in use”.

Something I’ve since come to equate with Nils Brunsson’s institutionalised organisational hypocrisy. One of the defense mechanisms we have developed as parts of organisations, to overcome the conflict between simple rational reasoned decisions and holistically understood best courses of action. (Equally well mis-exploited the other way round, to post-rationalise why not taking the best course of action was “the right decision at the time”.) Spot on Mark.

A series organised by “General Creative” apparently (broken link ?) [via Mark Federman]. Two interesting editions mentioned …

“Mythdemeanour – relationship between myths, the social construction of our world, and love.”

“Argument – the ways we used to know things, and what the electronic future may hold for us …. tactile reasoning by choreography.”

Some great stuff happening in Toronto.

Global Province – Picked-up on a search cross-hit. A dense site, full of stuff – interesting ideas if not uniformly high quality. Worth a browse, to work out its value.

This BBC report on American Association for the Advancement of Science annual meeting in Missouri.

The AAAS president, Gilbert Omenn, says

“It’s time to recognise that science and religion should never be pitted against each other.”

Hear hear.

“The intelligent design movement belittles evolution [and] it makes God a designer – an engineer.”

said George Coyne, director of the Vatican Observatory. Sanity prevails at the Vatican, as noted earlier.

Mark Gihring, a teacher from Missouri sympathetic to intelligent design, said

“I think if we look at where the empirical scientific evidence leads us, it leads us towards intelligent design. [It] ultimately takes us back to why we’re here and the value of life… if an individual doesn’t have a reason for being, they might carry themselves in a way that is ultimately destructive for society.”

Apart from the logical fallacy in the induction from “scientific evidence”, this really illustrates the problem. IDC is a search for “life purpose”, rather than knowledge. Right problem, wrong solution, which isn’t to say the problem doesn’t deserve a solution.

The problem is clear enough. One [no doubt religiously motivated] legislative bill in Missouri suggests that

“schools should teach only science which can be proven by experiment.”

That of course, would be precisely nothing. Science curricula must be devised by people who at least understand what science is. (Of course it’s all too easy to reach for the rhetorical riposte that perhaps religiously motivated IDC’ists should be constrained to teach only material which can be proven by experiment too – level playing field and all that. But of course that’s why scientists shouldn’t set religious agendas either. We need to recognise metaphors on distinct levels, instead of looking for conflicts on a single level. You listening Dawkins ?)

Anyway, as ever, humour helps – as Eugenie Scott, director of the National Center for Science Education said

“I think as a [proposed science curriculum], intelligent design is dead. That does not mean intelligent design as a social movement is dead … this is an idea that has real legs and it’s going to be around for a long time. It will, however, evolve.”

🙂 Magic.

I guess this is the right place to link that recent “pain” cartoon from Tim Kreider.