Pynchon knows this, I say. Sorta always known.

[Joseph Tracy]

I think part of the point though is that there is growing evidence that science is up against the limits of empiricism and has moved it's brightest physicists toward spewing out untestable multidimensional string theory and spending billions to collide beams in  search of Higgs's God particle. Is this not some kind of pseudo scientific holy grail that is as much philosophy as physics? Will a unified interpretation follow? How real is the thing they may or may not have found and what exactly is the question being answered? Cuz it's getting mighty hot around here, lots of people with malaria, aids, Lymes, Ebola Lots of children starving, species disappearing,  fibers in the web of life breaking,  lot's of carbon and methane in the wind, toxic shit floating  down the river,arsenic in the rice, radioactive towns, a great deal of it thanks to the scientific revolution.
On May 29, 2013, at 6:31 PM, MalignD at aol.com wrote:

> Must disagree.  Shallow, strawman arguments that seem ignorant of the fact that disagreement, challenge, sometimes piecemeal answers are part of science and a large part of what makes it powerful.
> 
> The questions he mentions are tough, and certainly there are no easy answers. But to suggest we're going to philosophize our way to them is ... well:  good luck.
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Keith Davis <kbob42 at gmail.com>
> To: Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net>
> Cc: P-list List <pynchon-l at waste.org>
> Sent: Wed, May 29, 2013 3:24 pm
> Subject: Re: Pynchon knows this, I say. Sorta always known.
> 
> Amen
> 
> 
> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 10:31 AM, Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net> wrote:
> This is an excellent, brief but substantial rebuttal to the tidy mathematical models of Hawking and his presumptions about the meaning and explanatory power of those models. Hawking sees himself as part of the clear-headed data-based scientific revolution, when he is largely a conservative voice defending a particular POV that has been around with variations since the Enlightenment. I often feel that science has been politicized into the same name-calling and two party divisions which dominate political thought. It's a matter of survival,  allies in a tough market place rather than truly independent thinking .  All of this is discussed in Pynchon's essay( Is it O.K. to be a Luddite?) referring to CP Snow's lecture- "The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution" .
> 
> Mostly it looks a lot like talking monkeys heaving shit at each other when they/we reach the limits of their/our ability to  explain, know or understand. To me part of the mindset I have imperfectly come to ( I still throw shit from time to time), is a willingness to live with many unanswered questions. I feel less hardened in this space, and I feel Pynchon and many artists occupy this space and ask us to try it out.  It allows for the deepest kind of curiosity without promising answers. I think it allows for taking philosophic , spiritual, or moral positions without being self -righteously blind to the inconsistencies or problems in our model.
> 
> 
> On May 27, 2013, at 5:31 AM, Markekohut wrote:
> 
> >
> >>
> >> www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/27/physics-philosophy-quantum-relativity-einstein?CMP=twt_fd
> >>
> >> Download the official Twitter app here
> >>
> >>
> >> Sent from my iPad
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> www.innergroovemusic.com