|Topic:||Re:Re:limits and horizons|
|Posted by:||Don Razi|
Thank you Dr. Grinder for your response. I apologies for not addressing Carmen Bostic St. Clair, but I'm a creature of habit and I must admit that I read "Whisperings" as if it had only been authored by you. You and Carmen Bostic St. Clair merge your narrative voices so well that it doesn't change the quality of presentations which you alone have accomplished. However, I'm sure that her unique perspective has widened and enriched the scope of your endeavors. |
About Horgen's title "The End of Science" you said: "You see, for us, science is the name of a certain class of epistemologies and it is from that point of view equivalent to proposing that people have decided to stop attempting to make sense (or mental maps) out of their experience through the use of mapping from experience to partially explicit models of what is happening and then return to experience to test their partial model against further experience. To us, this is absurd - we, as a species, are wired to do this (f1 and f2 filters)."
I should make clear that Horgen apparently would agree with you completely on this point. I think, however, that he would distinguish between
science and epistemology only to say that, for him, science (for it to be solid science)must be falsifiable, that is, epistemologically it must not be closed to counterexample. In fact, while Horgen has a deep love for hard science, he admits that it can often be much less interesting and even meaningful than what he calls ironic science. Ironic science is often fueled by the romantic imagination of a limitless landscape, or the eventual summing up of how it ALL happens...Ironic science can ultimately never be argued with because its statements are not to be tested experimentally. So when Horgen suggests that it might not be wrong to predict that science will shift into a more and more ironic stance as its (hard science) limits become more apparent and its insights become more abstract, he seems to be well aware that it is NOT the end of epistemology. I think he would fully agree with you that people are hard wired to try to make sense of their experiences.
Horgen devotes quite a bit of his book to his conversations with Gould. This is a fascinating book because Horgen isn't claiming anything drastic other than the observation that outside of the fantasy that science will live for the next 2000 years as it has for the last 150, you have the possible fact that this has been an extremely special time in our history in which we have come to understand the broad outlines of everything from Big Bang to Natural Evolution, that nothing will challenge the core of these understandings no matter how interesting or useful as an application.
Dr. Grinder and Ms. St. Clair, I wonder if you would comment on why it may appear, at least, that nobody in NLP has generated any models that have the impact of those models presented in its first 4 or 5 years?
This is not criticism and I am willing to be shown that, indeed, there have been more and more effective models put out there since those early days. I am making an assumption that things have dried out. I admit that I keep hoping Bandler or you would come out with a book that presents new models of other forms of excellence which are as graspable as those early ones. I like Robert Dilt's work in the "Strategies of Genius" series, but even at its best it is far from as generative as your early work. And, I think Dilts has been putting out quite a bit of work compared to so many others out there.
|Topic||Date Posted||Posted By|
|limits and horizons||20/08/2002 04:02:35||Don Razi|
|Re:limits and horizons||20/08/2002 17:42:53||John Grinder|
|Re:Re:limits and horizons||21/08/2002 06:45:38||Don Razi|
|Re:Re:Re:limits and horizons||21/08/2002 20:21:58||Carmen Bostic St. Clair and John Grinder|