The alien hypothesis?

[John Doe]

"physico-social" force? This is a bunch of confused,
arbitrary metaphyscial gobbledygook..."replaced" in
what sense? What exactly is an "objectivist"? I never
met one - have you? Please introduce me to one...only
an idiot posing as a scinetist would try to make sense
of Newton's laws of motion reinterpreted in social
forms...that simply means we make cute metaphoric
descriptions comparing particle motion with human
activity; poets and fiction writers have excelled at
that for decades..."from the world beyond
itself"???....wha?.....an abstract "carrier" would not
be abstract if borrowed form particle physics; it
would have to represent a presumed REAL force or real
matter....I can't even bother with the rest...it's
seductive, and makes your brain go oooooo- cool..but's
it's not talking about anything tenable...

--- jbor at bigpond.com wrote:

> "[...] what may need to be ‘replaced’ in nature, in
> order to establish 
> a social explanation of natural phenomena, is the
> objectivist concept 
> of insentient ‘physico-chemical force’—by an
> empirically equivalent 
> sentient ‘physico-social force.’ The resulting
> theory of SAC-mediated 
> phenomena is subjectivist rather than objectivist,
> but it nevertheless 
> is Newtonian in form (mathematically) because it
> still is determined by 
> his laws of motion reinterpreted in social rather
> than physical terms. 
> Physico-social force is simply that influence or
> power arising within 
> anyone or anything that responds to information
> received from the world 
> beyond itself, whose response in turn tends to
> reciprocally influence 
> the world beyond via information that it itself
> disseminates in some 
> manner.
> 
> The abstract ‘carrier’ of the physico-social force
> thus conceived, to 
> borrow a concept from particle physics, and in
> contradistinction to the 
> insentient objects of the objectivist world of OEC,
> is essentially the 
> Leibnizian ‘monad’ (Rutherford, 1995:124-175)—a term
> here signifying 
> any material body (or the elements or parts thereof)
> that exhibits 
> sentient behavior, whether in actuality or only
> apparently, whether 
> ‘human’ or ‘non-human’ (in Latour’s usage), whether
> living or 
> non-living. However, Latour’s ‘actant’ is
> essentially the same thing in 
> SAC and will be used in place of Leibniz’s monad. As
> interpreted here, 
> the actant: (1) is an innate sentience and
> intelligence that underlies 
> all existence, (2) is simultaneously both subject
> and object, (3) is 
> manifested through agent causation rather than event
> causation, and (4) 
> encompasses both humans and non-humans to include
> all systems and 
> subsystems thereof down to the elementary particle
> level. [...]" (Zaman 
> 2001)
> 
> Cf. also Felipe and those "Sentient Rocksters" in GR
> (pp. 612-3).
> 
> best
> 
> > See also, e.g.,
> >
> >
>
http://theoryandscience.icaap.org/content/vol002.001/05zaman.html
> >
> >
>
http://theoryandscience.icaap.org/content/vol003.002/zaman.html
> >
> > Cf. "[...] there's a feeling about that
> cause-and-effect may have been 
> > taken as far as it will go. That for science to
> carry on at all, it 
> > must look for a less narrow, a less . . . sterile
> set of assumptions. 
> > The next great breakthrough may come when we have
> the courage to junk 
> > cause-and-effect entirely, and strike off at some
> other angle." (GR 
> > 89)
> >
> > best
> >
> > On 19/10/2005 Otto wrote:
> >
> >> This reminds me of Jonathan Culler's "On
> Deconstruction. Theory and 
> >> Criticism after Structuralism" (Cornell Univ.,
> Ithaca, New York, 
> >> 1982). Maybe you should check the second chapter
> "Deconstruction" for 
> >> Nietzsche's reversal of cause and effect where it
> is shown how the 
> >> cause is imagined after the effect has been
> suffered. Got it only in 
> >> German.
> >
> 
> 
> 



		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
http://farechase.yahoo.com