Rupert Sheldrake : morphogenetic resonance

[Bled Welder]

> From: brook7 at sover.net wrote:
"...a fundamentalist high priest of current theory."
That's the most enjoyable way to think of them.  And truest.
I used to read Popper, eons ago.  I remember a blurb on the back of one of his books that said "Pop's grand, because unlike the great dull army of..." That's what I think of everybody who mindlessly sticks with the current paradigm that they've been indoctrinated into by the power of the system.
Mm, power feels good!  But then I read W.Kaufmann's defense of Hegel against Popper, and what can I say, I really dig Kaufmann way more than Pop, and Kauff square him as a leader of a great dulll army, pumping his baton into the air to the beat of the hoofs, or poker.

> Subject: Re: Rupert Sheldrake : morphogenetic resonance
> From: brook7 at sover.net
> Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 00:16:30 -0400
> To: pynchon-l at waste.org
> 
> Gould just has a knack for evading the gaps in his cosmology with nasty smartass repetition of his shtick.  Could it be that he is arrogant and dismissive because he is the best at selling books to others who want equivalent ego thrills of explaining everything? My own take is that anyone that arrogant is not really a scientist with the spirit of inquiry but a fundamentalist high priest of current theory.
> 
>  I t is one thing to be uninterested based on a review, and another to dismiss an idea without hearing its substance as though you had yourself investigated it.
> 
> On Mar 29, 2012, at 10:10 PM, bandwraith at aol.com wrote:
> 
> > Sheldrake's a crackpot, but a lovable crack-
> > pot. I first encountered him in the perennial
> > pbs pledge week favorite  "A Glorious Accident"
> > 
> > " ... guests included Daniel Dennett,
> > Freeman Dyson, Stephen Jay Gould,
> > George Page, Oliver Sacks, Rupert
> > Sheldrake, and Stephen Toulmin..."
> > 
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Glorious_Accident
> > 
> > In which he took a drubbing from the
> > obnoxious S.J. Gould, who was right, but
> > unnecessarily arrogant and dismissive.
> > 
> > The dithering Dyson told of an amusing
> > encounter with Wittgenstein at Cambridge.
> > 
> > Dyson is interesting, as well,  because he
> > is a world class mathematician/physicist
> > with literary pretensions, who occasionally,
> > like Stephen Weinberg (electro-weak
> > unification), makes a fool oh himself in the
> > pages of the NYRB- the most current issue
> > in fact. In which, he, Dyson, explains how
> > even first rate scientists are not immune
> > from Sheldrake-like flights of wishful
> > thinking:
> > 
> > http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/apr/05/science-rampage-natural-philosophy/
> > 
> > "The fringe of physics is not a sharp
> > boundary with truth on one side and
> > fantasy on the other. All of science is
> > uncertain and subject to revision.."
> > 
> > You might take a peek.
> > 
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: malignd <malignd at aol.com>
> > To: pynchon-l <pynchon-l at waste.org>
> > Sent: Thu, Mar 29, 2012 7:17 pm
> > Subject: Re: Rupert Sheldrake : morphogenetic resonance
> > 
> > 
> > Sheldrake's a quack.  So was Jung.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20120330/b6d405e2/attachment.html>