Re: virus:Other Reality
John A (jwa@inx.net)
Wed, 08 May 1996 22:43:16 -0500
Bill Godby wrote:
>
> A quick review of anthropological materials (ethnographies) amassed in
> the last century may convince you that concepts of nature itself are
> constructed. There is no immutable notion of nature that we are born
> with. I will not argue that there exists a natural world, this is for
> sure. However it is the way that meaning is garnered from it that is at
> issue. This is at the heart of cultural difference, cosmological
> theories, generally theories of knowledge, all memetic. Science pretends
> that it is objective and that it transcends this problem but if you look
> at the history of science or the philosophy of science it is clear that
> scientific knowledge it just as bound to social structure as anything
> else. I'm not arguing that there _is_ no natural world, but rather how
> it is defined. Regarding physics of the late 20th century and our
> "reality" as it is portrayed and seen in art, architecture, literature
> and music, Quantum Theory has undeniably played a profound role.
> Heisenburg's uncertainty priniciple has not proved something easy to
> live with however.
>
I didn't say that we are born with knowledge or a conception of the
natural world. From living and percieving we can infer that there is a
natural world; that is why the concept of reality can be socially
defined. If this knowledge were a priori, then reality would always be
considered the same.
--
John Aten
jwa@inx.net