addressalign-toparrow-leftarrow-rightbackbellblockcalendarcameraccwcheckchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-small-downchevron-small-leftchevron-small-rightchevron-small-upchevron-upcircle-with-checkcircle-with-crosscircle-with-pluscrossdots-three-verticaleditemptyheartexporteye-with-lineeyefacebookfolderfullheartglobegmailgooglegroupshelp-with-circleimageimagesinstagramFill 1linklocation-pinm-swarmSearchmailmessagesminusmoremuplabelShape 3 + Rectangle 1ShapeoutlookpersonJoin Group on CardStartprice-ribbonprintShapeShapeShapeShapeImported LayersImported LayersImported Layersshieldstartickettrashtriangle-downtriangle-uptwitteruserwarningyahoo

Re: [humanism-174] Re: Postmodernism

From: Mark R. O.
Sent on: Friday, January 25, 2013 5:45 AM

Right now I exist in a subjective reality that overlaps yours.
In this overlap we have some point of commonality.  I accept
this because I have nothing else to accept.  If my reality were
to change then you may become irrelevant or not depending
on my experience.  (Please understand that I am writing from
the only perspective I can, my own.)

To science in general, it has been a great tool, once you look into
the "rabbit hole" of  theoretical physics and couple that with
philosophy then begin to ask why, you get me.  I use the information
that comes from science to try to figure out the ubiquitous question
to the answer that is 42.  That is, why am I here, do I even exist?
Is there an objective reality, and can I know it?  It means I have
many more questions than answers.  It means that I know, I know
nothing except for the fact of my ignorance.  It means that I am
open to finding the answers regardless the effect it may have on my,
subjective, reality.

M. Orel

On[masked]:39, Glen wrote:
> Mark, you said he'd be happy to continue discussing your postmodernist views. Good, perhaps you can begin by answering the question I asked last time: How do you apply "postmodernism" to science and human evolution in particular?  I see nothing in the Wikipedia description you agreed with, or the additional explanation you posted, that would justify accepting evolution as a fact, but for human evolution, insisting we must know for sure which genera are in the direct line to us.  Even if we had no idea which general were ancestral to us (which is not the case) the DNA and other biologic evidence is overwhelming that we are in fact related to other primates.  Again, if that evidence doesn't indicate that, what in your view would it mean?

Our Sponsors

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy