----------------- HES POSTING ----------------- 
Martin Tangora feels "deeply disturbed by the reckless disregard shown here 
for 20th century cosmology, paleogeology, physics, and evolutionary 
biology", and Mohammed Gani (after Chas Anderson) reminded him that there 
are good reasons for feeling deeply disturbed by the reckless disregard of 
science for living entities. 
 
This is indeed the crucial point of difference, because the gist of 
autonomy eludes all of today's scientific thought. The reason is simple: By 
premise, it approaches its object in descriptions. In this way, it can only 
detect results of deliberate acts, but never the cause of the act itself. 
The chosen categories eliminate this realm. One can of course try to catch 
life by projecting the cause of change into the genes (molecular biology), 
or the cause of thought into the brain (neurosciences), but then one can 
only grasp some part of what one would like to grasp, never strictly all of 
the phenomenon. Of course one can acquiesce with that part and pretend 
there is no more than that. Is that really helpful? 
 
But since Martin Tangora feels "Chas Anderson, whoever he is, deserves the 
same treatment that he shows everyone else", we should maybe offer Martin 
Tangora the same treatment that he shows everyone else. We might simply 
remember that even in the realm of the inanimate itself, science is far 
from having achieved what Martin Tangora feels it has. Take for example 
quantum theory. It offers a probabilistic image of matter. But is has never 
realized that its paradox imagery is only the fruit of a specific 
one-sidedness in its approach, namely of wanting to measure. Yet measuring 
is never an absolute act. Man must posit the unit or act of reference, 
because nature offers no basic unit for any metrics whatsoever. Even 
Planck's constant or the speed of light are no universally basic units: 
Recently cosmologists were shocked that maybe the fine structure constant 
and the speed of light are not really constant after all -- while in a 
wider view variations are indeed very probable, because nothing material 
can be strictly eternal. The debate on the Anthropic Principle is one of 
the results of science's incomplete grasp. Other hot debates are sure to 
follow. 
 
There are conceptual (or rather: categoreal) approaches which allow a truly 
holistic grasp and do not incur the dangers that today's scientific 
approach willy-nilly implies. But they are not available to the average 
mind acquiescing with the usual half-truths. This being the mainstream 
position, the thirst for such alternatives is not yet developed enough for 
the alternatives to surface. We will probably have to suffer some more from 
the old one-sidednesses and incompletenesses until wanting better than 
that. Science is a good catalyst in this process, because it forces the 
process of misunderstanding life to the point of having to recognize that 
this is not the best path to take. 
 
Of course I am ready to discuss any of the mentioned points with whoever 
would like to. In fact I enjoy doing so. 
 
Alec Schaerer 
 
 
------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]