Sunday, May 25, 2008

Conspiracy Theory: Bush Ordered the 9/11 Attacks

If you groove on conspiracy theories -- especially about 9/11-- you'll love this stuff. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised, but I highly doubt it.

Here's a taste:
Our case is alleging that Bush and his puppets Rice and Cheney and Mueller and Rumsfeld and so forth, Tenet, were all involved not only in aiding and abetting and allowing 9/11 to happen but in actually ordering it to happen. Bush personally ordered it to happen. We have some very incriminating documents as well as eye-witnesses, that Bush personally ordered this event to happen in order to gain political advantage, to pursue a bogus political agenda on behalf of the neocons and their deluded thinking in the Middle East. I also wanted to point out that, just quickly, I went to school with some of these neocons. At the University of Chicago, in the late 60s with Wolfowitz and Feith and several of the others and so I know these people personally. And we used to talk about this stuff all of the time. And I did my senior thesis on this very subject - how to turn the U.S. into a presidential dictatorship by manufacturing a bogus Pearl Harbor event. So, technically this has been in the planning at least 35 years.
The man making these accusations is Stanley Hilton, attorney for the 9/11 taxpayers' lawsuit. He was legal counsel for Bob Dole. He represented hundreds of the victims' families of 9/11 in a $7 billion lawsuit against the government that was thrown out of court in 2004, the judge ruling that US citizens do not have any right to sue a sitting President, based on the Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity, among other reasons.


Labels: ,

delicious diigo digg furl google ma.gnolia newsvine reddit spurl Technorati MindBodyGreen StumbleUpon

Martin Scorsese On Stanley Kubrick's Lolita and Barry Lyndon

The brilliant Martin Scorsese examines Stanley Kubrick's Lolita and Barry Lyndon, looking at the themes, film making techniques, and movement of the films.


via videosift.com


Labels: ,

delicious diigo digg furl google ma.gnolia newsvine reddit spurl Technorati MindBodyGreen StumbleUpon

Satire: Hillary Rejects, Denounces Self


Andy Borowitz reports on Hillary Clinton's latest gaffe.
Hillary Rejects, Denounces Self
Throws Self Under Bus After Gaffe

Responding to a chorus of outrage touched off by her comments about the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) made a bold attempt at damage control today by distancing herself from herself.

Many political observers had assumed Sen. Clinton would respond in some manner to the controversy she had created with her comments, but few expected her to throw herself under the bus.

At a rally today in South Dakota, the New York senator said that the comments she made were “totally unacceptable,” adding, “I hereby reject and denounce myself.”

Attempting to reassure her dwindling base of support, she said that her comments “have no place in a political campaign, and the person who made them will have no role in my administration.”

Sen. Clinton also offered an explanation for her comments about the late Sen. Kennedy, telling the crowd, “I am still suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of my service in the Bosnian army.”

While early reaction to her latest comments was mixed, Clinton aide Terry McAuliffe called the speech “a home run.”

“She came out today and said she was disgusted and appalled by Hillary Clinton,” Mr. McAuliffe said. “That puts her in the mainstream of American opinion.”

Sen. Clinton's decision to throw herself under the bus also drew praise from her husband, former president Bill Clinton, who joined in rejecting and denouncing her.

“When I heard her comments about Bobby Kennedy, I thought, wow, somebody in her campaign said something idiotic and this time it wasn't me,” he said.

Elsewhere, American Airlines announced that it would charge customers $15 for the first lost bag.


Labels: ,

delicious diigo digg furl google ma.gnolia newsvine reddit spurl Technorati MindBodyGreen StumbleUpon

The Simpsons - What's A Gym

Funny.


The Simpsons - What's A Gym


Labels: , ,

delicious diigo digg furl google ma.gnolia newsvine reddit spurl Technorati MindBodyGreen StumbleUpon

Saturday, May 24, 2008

Daily Om - Acceptance As Giving


I've tried to explain this principle to someone I care about in the past, and I couldn't quite articulate it. I think this Daily Om does a better job than I did.
Acceptance As Giving
Allowing Ourselves To Receive

Giving and receiving are part of the same cycle, and we each give and receive in our own ways. But we can lose our balance when we try to be too controlling on either side of the cycle. On the receiving end, we may feel that we don’t deserve the effort made if what we gave was easy for us to give. But perhaps there is a different lesson there for us. We may be receiving not only gratitude, but a chance to see the world through the eyes of another. We may be learning that just because we gave easily, it doesn’t diminish its value. Or perhaps the universe is giving us an example to hold close to our hearts, to encourage us on some future day when our own generous act of giving is not met with a visible act of receiving. When we can allow ourselves to receive as well as give, we do our part to keep the channels of abundance open for ourselves and others.

Sometimes we may find ourselves struggling to respond to others’ gifts in the same ways—like responding to an expensive present with something equally expensive, or feeling like we have to throw a dinner party for someone who has thrown one for us. But when these are done out of a sense of obligation, their energy changes from something that shares to something that drains. If this sounds familiar, we can decide next time to allow ourselves to receive with arms, minds and hearts open and simply say thank you.

Accepting a person’s gift is a gift in itself. Sincere appreciation for their acknowledgment and their effort joins our energy with theirs in the cycle of giving and receiving, and nurtures all involved. If ever we find we are still having difficulty, we can decide to allow ourselves to be conduits for gratitude and accept on behalf of a loving, giving universe.

Tags: , , , , , ,

Labels: , ,

delicious diigo digg furl google ma.gnolia newsvine reddit spurl Technorati MindBodyGreen StumbleUpon

Chris Rock: Bigger and Blacker [NSFW]

This is the full HBO show, and definitely not safe for work, unless you work someplace cool.

It starts a little slow (for me), but when he gets to "bullet control," he's on a roll.


via videosift.com


Labels: ,

delicious diigo digg furl google ma.gnolia newsvine reddit spurl Technorati MindBodyGreen StumbleUpon

Six 'Uniquely' Human Traits Now Found in Animals


This is from Richard Dawkins blog, and it's kind of cool, so I thought I'd share it here, too.
Six 'uniquely' human traits now found in animals
Kate Douglas

To accompany the article So you think humans are unique? we have selected six articles from the New Scientist archive that tell a similar story. We have also asked the researchers involved to update us on their latest findings. Plus, we have rounded up six videos of animals displaying 'human' abilities.

1. Culture

Art, theatre, literature, music, religion, architecture and cuisine – these are the things we generally associate with culture. Clearly no other animal has anything approaching this level of cultural sophistication. But culture at its core is simply the sum of a particular group's characteristic ways of living, learned from one another and passed down the generations, and other primate species undoubtedly have practices that are unique to groups, such as a certain way of greeting each other or obtaining food.

Even more convincing examples of animal cultures are found in cetaceans. Killer whales, for example, fall into two distinct groups, residents and transients. Although both live in the same waters and interbreed, they have very different social structures and lifestyles, distinct ways of communicating, different tastes in food and characteristic hunting techniques – all of which parents teach to offspring.

Read the original article: Culture shock (24 March 2001)

Hal Whitehead, Dalhousie University writes:

"Since our 2001 review, people have often considered culture as a potential explanation of the behavioural patterns that have turned up in their studies of whales and dolphins.

"Our own work has concentrated on the non-vocal forms of sperm-whale culture. The different cultural clans of sperm whales, although in basically the same areas, use these waters very differently, and are affected very differently by El Niño events. They also have different reproductive rates.

"In sperm whales, and likely other whales and dolphins, culture has the potential to affect population biology, and so issues as diverse as genetic evolution and the impacts of global warming on the species."

2. Mind reading

Perhaps the surest sign that an individual has insight into the mind of another is the ability to deceive. To outwit someone you must understand their desires, intentions and motives – exactly the same ability that underpins the "theory of mind". This ability to attribute mental states to others was once thought unique to humans, emerging suddenly around the fifth year of life. But the discovery that babies are capable of deception led experts to conclude that "mind-reading" skills develop gradually, and fuelled debate about whether they might be present in other primates.

Experiments in the 1990s indicated that great apes and some monkeys do understand deception, but that their understanding of the minds of others is probably implicit rather than explicit as it is in adult humans.

Read the original article: Liar! Liar! (14 February 1998)

Marc Hauser, Harvard University, writes:

"The tamarin work didn't pan out, but there are now several studies that show evidence of theory of mind in primates, including work by Brian Hare, Josep Call, Mike Tomasello, Felix Warneken, Laurie Santos, Justin Wood, and myself on chimps, rhesus monkeys and tamarins. There is nothing quite like a successful Sally-Anne test, but studies point to abilities such as seeing as a form of knowing, reading intentions and goals."

3. Tool use

Some chimps use rocks to crack nuts, others fish for termites with blades of grass and a gorilla has been seen gauging the depth of water with the equivalent of a dipstick, but no animal wields tools with quite the alacrity of the New Caledonian crow. To extract tasty insects from crevices, they craft a selection of hooks and long, barbed tapers called stepped-cut tools, made by intricately cutting a pandanus leaf with their beaks. What's more, experiments in the lab suggest that they understand the function of tools and deploy creativity and planning to construct them.

Nobody is suggesting that toolmaking has common origins in humans and crows, but there is a remarkable similarity in the ways in which their respective brains work. Both are highly lateralised, revealed in the observation that most crows are right-beaked – cutting pandanus leaves using the right side of their beaks. New Caledonian crows may force us to reassess the mental abilities of our first toolmaking ancestors.

Read the original article: Look, no hands (17 August 2002)

Gavin Hunt at the University of Aukland, writes:

"The general aim of our research on New Caledonian crows is to determine how a 'bird brain' can produce such complex tools and tool behaviour. Since the New Scientist article appeared in 2002, our team has focused on continuing to document tool manufacture and use in the wild (New Zealand Journal of Zoology, vol 35 p 115), the development of tool skills in free-living juveniles, the social behaviour and ecology of NC crows on the island of Maré, experimental work investigating NC crows' physical cognition and general intelligence, and neurological work.

"Some of this work is being undertaken collaboratively with laboratories in Germany (neurology) and New Zealand (genotyping). A very similar study is also being carried out independently at the University of Oxford. This parallel research has produced findings that are both confirmatory and conflicting."

Alex Kacelnik, University of Oxford, adds:

"We now know for sure that genetics is involved in the tool-making abilities of new Caledonian crows. We raised nestlings by hand and found that chicks that had never seen anybody handle objects of any kind started to use tools to extract food from crevices at a similar age to those who were exposed to human tutors using tools (Animal Behaviour, vol 72, p 1329). Clearly, observing others is not necessary for the tool use. However chicks exposed to tutoring exhibit a greater intensity of tool-related activity. Not surprisingly, genes and experience show a complex interaction.

"We have also developed a new technique, consisting of loading tiny video cameras on free-ranging birds, so as to see what they see and document the precise use of tools in nature. We have discovered that they use tools in loose soil, that they use a kind of tool not previously described (grass stems), and that they hunt for vertebrates (lizards). All of this, together with laboratory analysis of their cognitive abilities is forming a richer picture of what the species can do."

4. Morality

A classic study in 1964 found that hungry rhesus monkeys would not take food they had been offered if doing so meant that another monkey received an electric shock. The same is true of rats. Does this indicate nascent morality? For decades, we have preferred to find alternative explanations, but recently ethologist Marc Bekoff from the University of Colorado at Boulder has championed the view that humans are not the only moral species. He argues that morality is common in social mammals, and that during play they learn the rights and wrongs of social interaction, the "moral norms that can then be extended to other situations such as sharing food, defending resources, grooming and giving care".

Read the original article: Virtuous nature (13 July 2002)

Marc Bekoff, University of Colorado, writes:

"Work published this year showed that animals are able to make social evaluations and these assessments are foundational for moral behaviour in animals other than humans. Francys Subiaul of the George Washington University and his colleagues showed that captive chimpanzees are able to make judgments about the reputation of unfamiliar humans by observing their behaviour - whether they were generous or stingy in giving food to other humans. The ability to make character judgments is just what we would expect to find in a species in which fairness and cooperation are important in interactions among group members (Animal Cognition, DOI: 10.1007/s10071-008-0151-6)."

5. Emotions

Emotions allow us to bond with others, regulate our social interactions and make it possible to behave flexibly in different situations. We are not the only animals that need to do these things, so why should we be the only ones with emotions? There are many examples of apparent emotional behaviour in other animals.

Elephants caring for a crippled herd member seem to show empathy. A funeral ritual performed by magpies suggests grief. Was it spite that led a male baboon called Nick to take revenge on a rival by urinating on her? Divers who freed a humpback whale caught in a crab line describe its reaction as one of gratitude. Then there's the excited dance chimps perform when faced with a waterfall – it looks distinctly awe-inspired. These days, few doubt that animals have emotions, but whether they feel these consciously, as we do, is open to debate.

Read the original article: Do animals have emotions? (23 May 2007)

6. Personality

It's no surprise that animals that live under constant threat from predators are extra-cautious, while those that face fewer risks appear to be more reckless. After all, such successful survival strategies would evolve by natural selection. But the discovery that individuals of the same species, living under the same conditions, vary in their degree of boldness or caution is more remarkable. In humans we would refer to such differences as personality traits.

From cowardly spiders and reckless salamanders to aggressive songbirds and fearless fish, we are finding that many animals are not as characterless as we might expect. What's more, work with animals has led to the idea that personality traits evolve to help individuals survive in a wider variety of ecological niches, and this is influencing the way psychologists think about human personality.

Read the original article: Critters with attitude (3 June 2001)

For an update on animal personalities and how research in this area is throwing light on human behaviour read The personality factor.


Labels: ,

delicious diigo digg furl google ma.gnolia newsvine reddit spurl Technorati MindBodyGreen StumbleUpon

Bill Moyers Journal: "Buying the War" (Complete)

Another good series from Bill Moyers. Buying the War documents the build-up to the invasion of Iraq, including all the lies and misinformation -- and the media's compliance -- that created an atmosphere that allowed the invasion to occur.

There's nothing that can be done about what the Bush administration did in lying to the nation (short of war crimes charges), but the bigger issue is what can be done to "fix" the media so that this never happens again. Or can it be changed?

The media has become so partisan that viewers choose to watch the channels that mesh with their worldviews. Conservatives love Fox and CNN, while liberals have become fans of some shows on MSNBC and Comedy Central. Is it possible to have unbiased news coverage ever again? I doubt it, personally.

This is from the PBS page linked to above:

How did the mainstream press get it so wrong? How did the evidence disputing the existence of weapons of mass destruction and the link between Saddam Hussein to 9-11 continue to go largely unreported? "What the conservative media did was easy to fathom; they had been cheerleaders for the White House from the beginning and were simply continuing to rally the public behind the President — no questions asked. How mainstream journalists suspended skepticism and scrutiny remains an issue of significance that the media has not satisfactorily explored," says Moyers. "How the administration marketed the war to the American people has been well covered, but critical questions remain: How and why did the press buy it, and what does it say about the role of journalists in helping the public sort out fact from propaganda?"

"Buying the War" includes interviews with Dan Rather, formerly of CBS; Tim Russert of MEET THE PRESS; Bob Simon of 60 MINUTES; Walter Isaacson, former president of CNN; and John Walcott, Jonathan Landay and Warren Strobel of Knight Ridder newspapers, which was acquired by The McClatchy Company in 2006.

In "Buying the War" Bill Moyers and producer Kathleen Hughes document the reporting of Walcott, Landay and Strobel, the Knight Ridder team that burrowed deep into the intelligence agencies to try and determine whether there was any evidence for the Bush Administration's case for war. "Many of the things that were said about Iraq didn't make sense," says Walcott. "And that really prompts you to ask, 'Wait a minute. Is this true? Does everyone agree that this is true? Does anyone think this is not true?'"

In the run-up to war, skepticism was a rarity among journalists inside the Beltway. Journalist Bob Simon of 60 MINUTES, who was based in the Middle East, questioned the reporting he was seeing and reading. "I mean we knew things or suspected things that perhaps the Washington press corps could not suspect. For example, the absurdity of putting up a connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda," he tells Moyers. "Saddam...was a total control freak. To introduce a wild card like Al Qaeda in any sense was just something he would not do. So I just didn't believe it for an instant." The program analyzes the stream of unchecked information from administration sources and Iraqi defectors to the mainstream print and broadcast press, which was then seized upon and amplified by an army of pundits. While almost all the claims would eventually prove to be false, the drumbeat of misinformation about WMDs went virtually unchallenged by the media. THE NEW YORK TIMES reported on Iraq's "worldwide hunt for materials to make an atomic bomb," but according to Landay, claims by the administration about the possibility of nuclear weapons were highly questionable. Yet, his story citing the "lack of hard evidence of Iraqi weapons" got little play. In fact, throughout the media landscape, stories challenging the official view were often pushed aside while the administration's claims were given prominence. "From August 2002 until the war was launched in March of 2003 there were about 140 front page pieces in THE WASHINGTON POST making the administration's case for war," says Howard Kurtz, the POST's media critic. "But there was only a handful of stories that ran on the front page that made the opposite case. Or, if not making the opposite case, raised questions."

"Buying the War" examines the press coverage in the lead-up to the war as evidence of a paradigm shift in the role of journalists in democracy and asks, four years after the invasion, what's changed? "More and more the media become, I think, common carriers of administration statements and critics of the administration," says THE WASHINGTON POST's Walter Pincus. "We've sort of given up being independent on our own."

Here is the whole series embedded in a single video.




Labels: , , ,

delicious diigo digg furl google ma.gnolia newsvine reddit spurl Technorati MindBodyGreen StumbleUpon

Friday, May 23, 2008

Ellen Degeneres Schools John McCain on Gay Rights

One of the most uncomfortable interviews I have ever seen. You have to give McCain credit for the appearance -- he knew he was going to get that question and he agreed to it.

Watch it here.

On the other hand, McCain said he supports legal partnerships, yet he supported an amendment here in Arizona to ban ANY kind of legal partnerships, including those for straight people. Flip flop much?

From Crooks & Liars:
The problem is that McCain himself not only supported an amendment to the Arizona Constitution in 2006 that would have banned any “legal agreements” including “insurance” for domestic partners, but he cut advertisements for the measure (which failed). He also told prominent campaign supporter the late Jerry Falwell–who blamed 9/11 on gays and lesbians, among others–that if state constitutional measures such as this one were struck down by the courts, he would then support a federal gay-marriage ban.
So, where does he really stand? Was he lying to Ellen's mostly pro-gay rights audience, or has he changed his position? Or does he just say, vaguely, what his audience wants to hear?


Labels: , ,

delicious diigo digg furl google ma.gnolia newsvine reddit spurl Technorati MindBodyGreen StumbleUpon

Substance vs. Style: A Cognitive Science Approach to Art

From the TED blog:

Substance vs. style: a cognitive science approach

I%27m-too-sad-to-tell-you_lr_.jpgFans of Vik Muniz may be interested to learn the results of a recent study which shows that, when we look at a painting, our brains process its content before registering its style. In the study, paintings were presented in pairs for different time lengths and the participants were asked to judge the similarity within each pair.

After just 10ms exposure, a pair of paintings were rated as more similar to each other if they had identical rather than contrasting content, but style had no bearing. [...] Beyond 50ms, content exerted no more of an influence, suggesting all content information had been extracted by this stage. However, style continued to exert a growing influence beyond 50ms, with paintings matched for style being judged as progressively more similar.
Muniz, who spoke at TED in 2003, creates art that explores the tension between style and content by way of his mind-bending, masterful use of unexpected materials -- such as chocolate syrup or hundreds of colorful toys.

(Study via BPS Research Digest)

Image: Vik Muniz, Self Portrait (I am too sad to tell you, After Bas Van Ader), Rebus, 2003, 40 x 50", c-print. Image from the West Collection.

Here is the video of Muniz's TED Talk from 2003.

Vik Muniz: Art with wire, thread, sugar, chocolate:




Labels: , ,

delicious diigo digg furl google ma.gnolia newsvine reddit spurl Technorati MindBodyGreen StumbleUpon

Richard Rorty's Integral Philosophy?

Ovi had an article earlier this month that looked at the work of Richard Rorty. Some of the critique felt to me like he was moving toward an integral philosophy that rejected "the intellectually bankrupt representationalism and foundationalism of modern philosophy."

From Wikipedia: "Richard McKay Rorty (October 4, 1931 - June 8, 2007) was an American philosopher. He had a long and diverse career in Philosophy, Humanities, and Literature departments. His complex intellectual background gave him a comprehensive and nuanced understanding of the analytical tradition in philosophy he would later famously reject."

His major and most likely his enduring work was Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature.

In Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature (1979), Rorty argues that the central problems of modern epistemology depend upon a picture of the mind as trying to faithfully represent (or "mirror") a mind-independent external reality. If we give up this metaphor, then the entire enterprise of foundationalist epistemology is misguided. A foundationalist believes that in order to avoid the regress inherent in claiming that all beliefs are justified by other beliefs, some beliefs must be self-justifying and form the foundations to all knowledge. There were two senses of "foundationalism" criticized in Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. In the philosophical sense, Rorty criticized the attempt to justify knowledge claims by tracing them to a set of foundations; more broadly, he criticized the claim of philosophy to function foundationally within a culture. The former argument draws on Sellars's critique of the idea that there is a "given" in sensory perception, in combination with Quine's critique of the distinction between analytic sentences (sentences which are true solely in virtue of what they mean) and synthetic sentences (sentences made true by the world). Each critique, taken alone, provides a problem for a conception of how philosophy ought to proceed. Combined, Rorty claimed, the two critiques are devastating. With no privileged insight into the structure of belief and no privileged realm of truths of meaning, we have, instead, knowledge as those beliefs that pay their way. The only worthwhile description of the actual process of inquiry, Rorty claimed, was a Kuhnian account of the standard phases of the progress of discipline, oscillating through normal and abnormal science, between routine problem solving and intellectual crises. The only role left for a philosopher is to act as an intellectual gadfly, attempting to induce a revolutionary break with previous practice, a role that Rorty was happy to take on himself. Rorty claims that each generation tries to subject all disciplines to the model that the most successful discipline of the day employs. On Rorty's view, the success of modern science has led academics in philosophy and the humanities to mistakenly imitate scientific methods. Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature popularized and extended ideas of Wilfrid Sellars (the critique of the Myth of the given) and W. V. O. Quine (the critique of the analytic-synthetic distinction) and others who advocate the doctrine of "dissolving" rather than solving philosophical problems.

Here is how Emanuel L. Paparella talks about this seminal book:

Rorty holds that with Descartes there begins within modern philosophy a scientification of the same which has in turn produced several centuries’ worth of fierce debates between rationalists (Kant, for example) and empiricists (Hume, for example), idealists (Berkeley, for example) and materialists (Hobbes, for example) which were all based on a false premise. The false premise was the idea that the mind was a “theater of representation,” forever dealing with a reality outside itself which it observes objectively. Also faulty, for Rorty, is the later attempt to replace mind in the equation with language. He is convinced that the arduous philosophical search for foundational values, true nature, a priori truths, though sometimes fascinating and stimulating would forever fail to yield the hoped for results, that is to say, non-controversial results concerning matters of ultimate concern.

While paying lip service to God as the ultimate ground of philosophy (a God who is not the living God with whom Jacob wrestled all night thus receiving the name Israel, but the God of the philosophers demonstrated with rational proofs) the Cartesian project had in effect substituted science for God and had gone nowhere; it had in fact prepared a dehumanized world devoid of the poetic wherein we would think of our brains as so much hardware and the very concept of soul would no longer be grasped. Its only achievement, as Rorty sees it, was to elevate philosophers to an eminence they really did not deserve.

So the question is, what does Rorty substitute for what he considers the intellectually bankrupt representationalism and foundationalism of modern philosophy? He offers us “epistemological behaviorism.” We know what our society lets us know. What we accept has nothing to do with how well a statement mirrors the world; it has everything to do with how well it fits in what we have already come to believe, and the answers as to why we believe what we believe will be found in psychology, sociology and even biology, not philosophy.

The next crucial question is this: what is philosophy good for? A lot less than most philosophers care to admit, according to Rorty. By elevating the mind above and beyond physical reality, and taking that mind as their own intellectual territory, analytic philosophers had, in effect, placed themselves above and beyond other intellectual disciplines. They had made themselves the judges of what was real and meaningful, had placed themselves outside of history. So, what is the role of philosophers? If, as Rorty claims, there are no foundations to be uncovered, no a priori truths (that is to say, truths who do not need empirical evidence or experience) to be discovered, then philosophers were mere “conversationalists” and “re-describers.”

As someone who often feels philosophy is hopelessly out of touch with reality, Rorty's ideas (which were certainly controversial) are refreshing. His view that we are limited in our understanding by our cultural context is a powerful idea that moves philosophy out of the ivory tower and into the real world.

He is also way ahead of the curve in suggesting that we know what we know not due to philosophy (read: introspection), but rather due to psychology, sociology, and biology. There is no mind-body problem because mind is embedded in the body and the culture in which that body lives.

As far as philosophy is concerned, this borders on an integral (read: AQAL) form of philosophy. Hopefully there are others who will pursue this avenue of inquiry in Rorty's absence.


Labels: ,

delicious diigo digg furl google ma.gnolia newsvine reddit spurl Technorati MindBodyGreen StumbleUpon