GRGR (5) PK and other threads knotted into one another

[Paul Mackin]

Attempts  to tie together the divers attempts at explaining what's
going on between Ned and Roger--litcrit, philosophical, scientific,
Heideggerian--are welcome to my foggy brain. But here's a scientific
question. What exactly does Pointsman think he is studying? That is, is
Slothrop a case study of a general phenomonon or is Slothrop some kind of 
universal with only one particular--tying in with the  
only-one-of-everything idea? Not having a clear idea of  the universe
is a problem not only for Pointsman but for Roger, who will have to do the
arithmetic  on the reliabity of the experimental data as far as general
conclusions are concerned.  In either case the ones and zeros hangup of
Pointsman must fly out the window, because the experimental results can
only be expressed as a probablity (lying BETWEEN one and  zero) as to how
well (roughly speaking) the experimental data are likely to represent the
universe. Not knowing what Pointsman is up to makes  Roger very
frustrated. Pointsman would like to be doing pure science but he has been
poorly trained to do experimental biology or psychology. Remember his
background is medical practitionering. Probably he never went through the
process of doing a student research project under the guidance of a
qualified thesis director. If he had he would know how important Roger's
probabalitic imput should be to him. Certainly there is no essential
conflict between Roger and Ned's position from any kind of a scientific
standpoint. The causality thing is just some kind of reference to
Heisenbergs view of quantum systems having nothing much really to do with
bio-research methodologies. The point of all this I think is that
putting Roger and Ned into some kind of binary opposition is merely a
part of the muddle.

		(only too glad to add to the muddle)	P.

On Fri, 2 Jul 1999, Michael Perez wrote:

> rj wrote:
> "I'm not sure that probability theory frees you up from the determinist
> bind of objectivism either in the long run. The numbers are still ones
> and zeroes aren't they, but described rather than tested
> for/conditioned/manipulated. Judgment and consequent action are taken
> out of human hands: faith in and responsibility for these are
> apportioned to the numbers alone, aren't they?"
> 
> This lays bare both statistical and behaviorist determinism as
> objectifying the "subjects" they are studying.  This is done,
> presumably, to uncover some sorts of general principles of human
> behavior.  However, we are beginning to see in _GR_ how horribly this
> can turn and what can be forgotten in the application and justification
> of these objectifying principles.
> 
> With the study of humans, particularly where the data collected is from
> the subjects' responses to questions or other methods, it is much more
> difficult to make general statements about the propensity toward any
> given action.  Even dogs, pigs, and octopi may not be as simple as we
> can want to believe.  In some ways, all we have left to say anything
> about for certain is the semantic.  Wilfred Sellars wrote in _Science,
> Perception, and Reality_ (1963):  "The essential point is that in
> characterizing an episode or state as that of *knowing*, we are not
> giving an empirical description of that episode or state; we are
> placing it in the logical space of reasons of justifying and being able
> to justify what one says."[p.169]  Even pre-linguistic reactions such
> as pain possibly cannot be generally defined - see Wittgenstein's _Blue
> Book_ - and we can all turn into solipsists.
> 
> Slothrop's journey into the "stone-white cervix"[63.11] reveals a world
> where there is only one of everything.  In episode 14, there also is
> mirror image (Katje/Gottfried), but, perhaps, neither is complete
> without the other, and hemispheric opposites (Enzian/Gottfried), but
> the relationships are not complete and the symmetry is flawed.  The
> connections rely mostly on Blicero's fetishism - another form of
> objectification.
> 
> 
> Michael
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _________________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
>