Was headaches, now, Never Enough Philosophy

[Guest guest]

Stephen:

 

I was just thinking of the Daoist perspective where the limiting

role of the observer is central to meaning and articulation. I

suspect that behind much of these philosophical discussions is a

presumption of a Platonic idealized practitioner (what practitioners

should know and be) and idealized system of medicine (where concepts

have very precise meanings). Perhaps it is the fault of mathematics

in the West that we have a tacit expectation of exactness and total

predictability.

 

Jim Ramholz

 

 

 

, " stephen " <stephen@b...> wrote:

> Conceit is an interesting word choice in that context. You're

probably right that pride has something to do with it. I think

pride makes us all guilty of " ignore-ance " to varying degrees as we

become caught up in justifying our values and perspectives to others

in the process of subconciously convincing ourselves that we are on

the right track, while ignoring the factors that contradict or at

least reveal the limitations of our thinking.

[Guest guest]

I was just thinking of the Daoist perspective where the limiting role of the observer is central to meaning and articulation. I suspect that behind much of these philosophical discussions is a presumption of a Platonic idealized practitioner (what practitioners should know and be) and idealized system of medicine (where concepts have very precise meanings). Perhaps it is the fault of mathematics in the West that we have a tacit expectation of exactness and total predictability.>>>>You are probably correct

Alon

[Guest guest]

Jim,

>

> I was just thinking of the Daoist perspective where the limiting

> role of the observer is central to meaning and articulation.

 

I think your characterization of the Daoist perspective

here is incomplete. Not only is the role of the observer

limiting, it is engendering and empowering. As Bohr

summed it up, on the stage of life we are both actors

and audience.

 

I

> suspect that behind much of these philosophical discussions is a

> presumption of a Platonic idealized practitioner (what

practitioners

> should know and be) and idealized system of medicine (where

concepts

> have very precise meanings).

 

Does this critique refer to the system that

you have studied, practiced and taught? Or

do your suspicions concern only others?

 

Perhaps it is the fault of mathematics

> in the West that we have a tacit expectation of exactness and total

> predictability.

 

I don't know your level of understanding

of mathematics, and my own is all but

trivial. But mathematics, as I understand

it, is the science of patterns. All the

advanced mathematicians that I know

eschew exactness and total predictability.

If there is a fault related to mathematics

that results in some kind of unreasonable

expectations, I think it's to be found in

widespread ignorance of mathematics.

I doubt there are many mathematicians

on this list. I think we have to search

for our flaws in other areas and terms.

 

But maybe I'm missing the whole point here.

 

Can you explain it?

 

Ken