[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: language, meaning and nature



This is an interesting discussion for a permaculture group to be having - but I think
that there is a third point of view that exists apart from a defence of science and
progress as put forward by Sean and what I might call (hopefully without offence)
Souscayrous'  "other ways of knowing" argument.

That is- there is a materialist (i.e Marxist)  interpretation of science that places
scientific thought as a product of the material conditions of production. The best
exposition of this is in the works of Stephen Rose.  From this point of view science
(and i don't mean the reified object - but what scientists do) is part of the
political dialectic. IMHO though, the most pertinent materialist interpretation of
science is a feminist one as exemplified by the writings of Carolyn Merchant and Susan
Griffin.

Souscayrous wrote:

     Science treats the world as an
     array of Things to be studied, and misses their whatness (quiddity).
     Science treats the world as Things and thus we have technology.  Now the
     world has become a vast array of material for humankind to use as it needs
     (See Heideggers 'Question Concerning Technology') There are more fundamental

     ways of understanding the world.


and S.K. Harrison [Sean] replied

     If you believe that your account of the saw
     qualifies as a more fundamental way of
     understanding the world, you have missed the
     whole point of my comments earlier in this
     thread. Scientific inquiry today--with its
     supercollider, hubble telescope, mainframe
     computers and mathematical models--has *evolved*
     over millenia from instances like those I gave
     above about the solstice and the rock.

The problem that I have with this reply (albeit partially answered later by S.) is
that it postulates an evolution of science which is inherently progressive and
therefore better and/or more accurate and/or more complete etc. From this point of
view the subjective experience of Souscayrous' and his saw counts for naught - but
just because you can operate a supercollider doesn't mean you can operate a saw!

Let me give you a feminist permaculture example - the practice on Australian farmland
up until a very few years ago was to clear all native bush and to plant wall to wall
crops and or pasture. This was dictated by the banks backed up with scientific
research about yields and productivity. This was in spite of the fact that it had been
well established since 1910 that land clearing led to dry land salinity which resulted
in a permanent and catastrophic loss of productivity.

It is a well reported fact that many farmers wives ( in the 70 years between 1910 and
1980 the majority of farmers were considered to be men) cajoled, pleaded and persuaded
successfully their husbands to preserve the remaining few acres of bushland that was
uncleared on their block for usually very 'feminine' reasons (it was beautiful, it's
where we have our picnic's, it's where our third child was conceived, the wild flowers
are lovely in spring etc. ) . This is not to say that some of these women did not also
use more 'scientific' arguments ( there are rare plants there, the water's always been
the best from that bore etc.)

Since the economic consequences of salinity and loss of biodiversity have made
themselves apparent - these remaining few acres have increased in value as has the
role of women in farming decision making. Nowadays, 'scientific' arguments about the
preservation of bushland and the planting of trees have usurped the 'feminine'
arguments. Yet it is still widely apparent in rural political discourse in this
country that the protection of biodiversity and the sustainable use of land are
essentially sissy concerns and that real men should take every last surplus tree out
of the ground.

Souscayrous wrote:

      It is the death of God, the end of the belief in progress, the
     fracture of the self, the end of meaning and indeed my inflated,  'all words

     lie'.  Here lies the impasse.  This is my exit from academe.

A melancholy position. It reminds me of the existentialist position of Camus in The
Plague. He is not alone in this response to the history of science and politics in
Western Europe from the time of Galileo onwards. Even if his position infuriates Sean
Harrison. who responds:


     Philosophical or technical notions of self don't
     play a role in the evaluations of the Udeghe, the
     !Kung, the Pitjantjara, the Yezidis, the Inuit,
     the Tuvans, not to mention the lay majority of
     westerners and the vast numbers of Chinese,
     Japanese, Arabs, etc. In other words, there's
     nothing to fracture.

But indeed they do - in particular in relation to the cultural clash that arises upon
the contact between Western European and these cultures. The Ptitjantjatjara ( the
correct spelling) with whom I'm personally acquainted and Aboriginal culture in
Australia generally is rife with discussions about the notion of self and the
consequences of the two very different viewpoints. The most ubiquitous point of
contention and discussion is the position of one self as separate from one's relations
in European culture and the reverse in Aboriginal culture. This reflects directly upon
issues of exchange, fairness, reciprocity and selfishness. A European uninterested in
this discussion will get short shrift in any Aboriginal community (urban or Western
desert).


IN the interests of discussion let me just challenge once and for all the notion that
there is such a thing as human progress which seems to underlie Sean Harrison's
defence of scientific method. To argue that the world in 2001 is better off than it
was in 1801 or 1901 is, I would contend, fraught with problems. It would be like
arguing that the world of Rome in 300 AD was better than the world of Rome in 200 AD
etc. At the time, it may seem patently obvious - but within 50 years Rome was sacked
and the world entered a Dark Age ruled by petty tyrants and the occasional Arthurian
legend. I need hardly point out the consequences of the depletion of the earth's
resources and the unsustainability of current practices to people reading a
permaculture news list. Why are they here in the catacombs of the internet after all?

Regards

Bob Howard