| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Dilts Logical Levels! (pseudo-science) |
| Posted by: | Ryan |
| Date/Time: | 23/08/2003 04:16:07 |
|
Jerry, Excellent post. I regret that I do not have the time to make a more in depth reply. You ask: "...do you think it is fair to suggest that your modern science contains the presuppostion that there is 'something' outside of our representations? " I would guess that most scientist's would agree that there is something "out there" that they are trying to reach. However, to me the basic out there/ in here dichotomy doesn't make much sense, it seems an artifact of language and human thought which easily carves up the the world up into parts that do not exist. The nearest metaphor I can think of is the "nature/nurture controversy" or genetics vs. environment (etc.) Scientists from a variety of fields talk about these terms incessently. Yet, at the core there is no clear differentiation. A gene itself, is part of the environment (stable though the molecule might be) and is in fact affected by the environment over evolutionary time. It develops in a cell environment and likewise, what gets "expressed" in development is directly affected by environmental conditons (heat, chemicals in the blood, whatever) so that the two "entities" are inseperable. "However, they [St. Claire & Grinder], like most serious western thinkers, do propose that at least one thing is true: science only creates models. " As you imply (or I infer), Carmen and John are pretty clear the NLP deals only with representations and not "the real world" or "truth." Many scientist that I know have it backwards. They mistake the model or theory for the "real thing." I don' t think many scientists think of what they are doing as model-making. They often seem to think that they are getting at "it". In my post I was characterizing science as model-making, whether scientists realize it or not. For me, my existence is enough evidence that the world exists, although I in a very deep sense I am that world and it is me. Any separation is an epistemological mistake. I hope I am making a bit of sense. Ryan. |