EXISTENZ-KJSNA WEBPAGE |
||
email me SECOND CONTINUUM (routed to Website manager 8-1-2007) PART TWO: RIGHTS, ETHICS, AND THE INFLUENCE OF IMMANENT RELIGIOSITY AND TRANSCENDENCE—ersatz Entwicklung Table of Contents 1. Approaching humane (health and Justice) rights with genome-insight in sight 1. Approaching humane (health and justice) rights with genome information--I’ve decided to do more of a philosophical approach to Gregory’s Human Rights in an Information Age due in part to his approach indicated in the subtitle A Philosophical Analysis. My aim is to aid communication on emotively charged issues, which lend themselves to the employment of questionable ethics when school-like powers are on the defense. Jaspers is applicable because Gregory from his perspective has appropriated and applied Jaspers' works, and because he begins and concludes the rights and ethics work with clear references to Jaspers; he keeps within the bounds of “generic consistency” a principle he commits to throughout the book. A philosophical approach involves a quest for transparency of perspective. He uses a paradigmatic psychopathogist and philosopher, Jaspers, as one pivotal point, another being his authenticity as an individual with relative understanding of Jaspers, and the two brought to bear on current information. Transparency is illuminated by at least a surveying triangularity, and for this reason triangularity will be used in my preparatory considerations. But first an excursion to take a quick look at Gregory’s The Tasks of Truth, for the look will include my purpose that is no less obscure than the purposes I see demonstrated in that book. 1.0. Epistemological criterion tooled for twisting ciphers--Gregory Walters conceivably uses an epistemological method of at least triangularity (leverage and surveying) in approach as editor and contributor to his The Tasks of Truth, Essays on Karl Jaspers’s Idea of the University. It can be seen in the choice to compare Jaspers’ and Newman’s ideas of the university, the third point being the religious factor of Jaspers as the German protestant and Newman as Catholic in England (interesting Gregory properly considers the catholic/protestant influence more or less at Oxford, p. 78). Those three points constitute the spatial content of some objects of history. Time-measurement triangularity too is employed: Jaspers in his time is compared to Newman’s time the latter having priority and a preeminence (including religious institutionalism) being earlier. Then Gregory’s prospective updated perspective (currently 2007 using genome spatial measurements—DNA mapping) is the third time factor. Gregory uses nineteenth century Newman’s “encompassing” italicized word, referring to God and revelation, and of course twentieth century Jaspers’ “Encompassing” [encompassing of encompassing] and any mysterious coincidence is lessened by the time-measuring of events, Newman being prior, Jaspers being later—both expressing a later application of the earlier biblical idea of encompassing. I say that there is no Jaspers\Newman comparison in therapeutic cipher effect, for one includes the transcendental and the other limited to the immanental. The coincidental use of two words (Newman’s encompassing and Jaspers’ encompassing) sharing some significance is comparable to the effects of Sander Gliboff’s effort to do similarly with the Oxford Catholic/Protestant battleground-noises about “evolution” and the Moravian-significant Entwicklung, i.e., synchronizing them to reverberating echoes from Moravian religio-geography (including pietistic reactions to Jesuit influence to stem the tide of protests against Catholicism--the resulting Moravian emphasis on piety having an influence on the Wesley brothers in England and America). 1.01. Kurt Salamun’s approach is from a total idea that Jaspers is outdated—In Tasks of Truth Kurt follows an epistemological triune pattern with a caption about Jaspers “liberality” which proceeds as follows: “1. Jaspers Anti-Dogmatic Attitude” that is quickly reduced to something that can be utilized by Kurt for some purpose, i.e., after the cipher language is shaved from transcendental openings. That delimitation is advanced as prerequisite for the next item: “2. The Anti-Totalistic Attitude”, where he makes a point of associating Jaspers’ method with Karl Popper’s (who incidentally boosted Dawkins’ totalism and image by a complimentary comment during an Oxford visit) suggesting that the evolutionistic-talking Popper and transcendentalist cipher-speaking Jaspers are on the same epistemic ontological plateau seeking popularity. The implication is that they both share a sense of responsibility toward University students' character formation. The ground then is prepared for Kurt’s third point: “3. The Anti-Fundamentalistic Attitude” wherein Jaspers is portrayed as “rejecting” anything religiously fundamental, but Kurt’s choice of wording depicts Jaspers as being normally critical regarding Christian orthodoxy. 1.02. Relevance to my SECOND CONTINUUM’s treatment of Sander Gliboff’s publication--The importance of Kurt’s approach and technique for my Second Continuum is included in his point 2 where he reminds that Jaspers warns against illusionary ideas of progress that can result in a reaction against research if it does not support illusionary totalism (holism). Kurt does include three more points, but “3. The Anti-Fundamentalistic Attitude”, not Jaspers' anti-Orthodoxy, is central to Kurt’s purpose. And Kurt concludes with a presumption: “We must decide which…of Jaspers’s concept[s] are out of date…” Kurt’s conclusion then prepares the way for what is central in the Gregory’s edited work and that is a Jaspers and Newman comparison, and of course Newman is as constant as Catholicity is still extant, that final authority to which Newman assented but Jaspers never did and cannot be made to do so. In other words as long as Catholicity is a power, only Jaspers not Newman can be outdated. 1.1. My first and second point--My one point includes Gregory’s ethics book as a mere starting point to show primarily the place of ethics. Another is the award winning author Sander Gliboff’s paper on Entwicklung (referred to below in item 4.) for it serves to show a deficiency in ethical fourth-estate conduct, and it broadens the scope and appreciation for the subtle academic misuse of terms and points out the need for honest self evaluation and an openness to conceptual conversion by mind renewal. The hoped for result is that at least on a comprehensive academic level a better choice of terms can be used, i.e., a substitute in names, like from Saul the persecuting crusader to Paul the global tolerant missionary, to show a mind renewed by comprehensive in-depth understanding of historic global dynamics, the rational and emotional interconnective dynamic and comprehensive notion of relativity. 1.2. A third point is problematic and ethically and personally sensitive. It involves Gregory Walters’ paper presented at the KJSNA/APA Pacific Division in April 2007. The topic was announced as “Evolutionary Epistemology, Ethics and the Encompassing” and it reportedly addressed the philosophy of gene-being, the current knowledge of the human genome. 2. A fourth estate enigma--The problem with reporting on Gregory’s KJSNA/APA paper is there are particular and momentary constraints to public transparency; it is not to my knowledge available for intended public comsumption. The paper was presented within the bounds and laurels of a Society, and the paper is customarily not made readily available to the fourth-estate’s information-age commonwealth. Although that custom is open to evaluation by objectivity outside the group membership (anyone apparently could pay the fee and attend), it still presents an ethical conflict on a personal level and when individuals rather than group powers meet on level ground. Gregory’s appropriation of Jaspers’ philosophy makes for a kindred spirit of sorts. Fairness then becomes personalized and individualized. 2.1. Another hitch, and argumentation can be faster than light--I was not at the KJSNA-APA meeting to hear what was said firsthand. So I have only unpublicized indications of the more explicit direction Gregory’s thoughts were taking. It would not be fair to interpret something said with some temerity within the atmosphere of an expected ethical Jaspers-linked group-milieu. Perhaps one could take some meaning, but not exemplify today, the publication pattern of Jaspers and Heidegger. It seems that Heidegger’s proposed works were precluded by Jaspers’ publications indicating he had insight as to where Heidegger was going. In a way his General Psychopathology textbook was an intimidating preclusion to anything Heidegger might hope to publicize, and Heidegger was handicapped by some specific notoriety. The situation is different today because the information age was not then as it is now where one’s argument can be argued against with the speed of light. Feedback is also faster than the speed of light if it can be anticipated what another is going to argue before it is argued through the world wide internet—usually that predictability is dependent on shared information regarding one’s group self-preservation dependencies and other existential contingencies. 3. Precarious guessing--I’m anticipating that authoritative announcements, predominant economic biased academia, and popularized trendy talk regarding definitive origins have conditioned the degree of responsibility one might manifest. It would be difficult to present a paper addressing genome-knowledge without in general being interpreted that Jaspers philosophy, philosophical epistemic and analysis, is dated and outdated and that this “scientific knowledge” penetrates to highest heavens and the transcendental core of philosophy. The current historical situation is no less charged with dissent (and ought to be more nuanced-analyzed) then it was in the mid-nineteenth century or even the earliest of time-unites conceivable. One’s epistemology is affected by the limitations ontic-origin presuppositions impose. Having a paternal anthropomorphized viper styled morphological brane-like image influences epistemic cognizing and has since earliest genesis’ account of anthropogenesis, and can strike a healthy balance by emphasizing the invisible and unimaginable source of epistemic cognizing—albeit terms like dust and breath apply and can be elucidated. 3.1. Cipher ethics--Gregory’s expressions of concern over the genetic misuse of genome information constitute a critical continuation of positivisms’ effects on certitude (as expressed in his human rights book). However, “evolutionary” epistemology, ethics and the encompassing can touch the edge of another encompassing ethics and make Karl Jaspers appear complicit to an emphasis and implicate him in having a lack of sensitivity for historical understanding. It could undermine the meaning of cipher-therapeutics in communication, and diminish the function of periechontology, which constrains hubris. The erroneous effect is that genome information now is presumptuously such as to be a greater determining factor modifying cognition (epistemic objectivity) than philosophy and its historical basis. To utilize a form of an undeniably emotively charged “e” word needs more historical critical analysis such as I did in part on the Richard Dawkins Webpage (see my Site Map)—the burning alive of “Heretics” because of similar nominalism. A comparable example of word-misuse is seen when a powerful force confronts terrorism by using the word “crusade”! Not religiously belaboring its significance was a grave-promoting mistake—as either an off-the-cuff or cabinet-prepared speech. In the information age, if one’s limited vocabulary is an “e” or “c” word one best be quiet. 4. Responding in kind to Gliboff’s belabored efforts to thwart “Bildung”, “Entwicklung” “Gesetz”—Jaspers’ Mendel-research comments related—foreward to the anticipated publication of Gregory Walters’ metaphysic of gene-being-- 4.1. Sander Gliboff ‘s “Gregor Mendel and the Laws of E…” is a move to elucidate historical interrelatedness from a less than more objective, an objective manifesting itself in his guess that Mendel felt an urgency to establish the “e” movement. For that work he was awarded an Ivan Slade Prize by the British Society for History of Science [my emphasis]. Upon closer scrutiny the coincidental Oxford and Moravian data he ingenuously correlates can easily form a case example that meets Jaspers’ criterion for a view of history that loses cipher status due to “e. Coincidence” (191f PFR). One indicator of a potential correlation/co-deficiency is a biased approach to historical phenomena, such as “the more precious a historic memory, the greater its exposure to coincidence” (Jaspers). It turns out that Sander’s spin to some degree amounts to a subtle effort to impose upon German linguistics a precious anglicized emotively charged sign that participates more in present progression then does the German word Entwicklung. My proposition is that etymologically the latter is far more objective than less, more correct than incorrect whether one’s linguistic analysis utilizes syntactics, semantics, or pragmatics (respectively: signs to signs, signs to things, and signs to user). I see Sanders riding a wave’s crest taking advantage of the vatic induced “title” wave , the “e” test, measured by a one-sided academia move for an ersatz Entwicklung. His position is that Entwicklung can be, and must be transliterated as the “e” word. His “e” effort is comparable to the missionary zeal with which Latin rituals were imposed in Germany where it was most foreign and recalcitrance most pronounced—and with this thought Moravian history can be re-approached in item 5 below. His “award” winning work is considered on this Webpage because a critique and contrast of it will help understand Gregory’s position on the origin of humankind when and if it is publicized. 4.2. The book-review that reveals Sander's bias—Sander's bias manifests itself in a book review he did of Richard Weikart’s From Darwin to Hitler, Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany. The evidence of “e” induced hubris was obvious in the pronounced arrogance. Invited to respond by H-German, Richard Weikart’s resound was more than equal to the review’s criticism. I was not aware of the review or response when reviewing Sander's paper on Entwicklung. Reviewing the review and response gives one a sense of the conduct wanting in Sander's thinking (Indiana University) and the fairness of Richard (California State University, Stanislaus). See Internet to read Sander’s publication in Science History Publications, and also Richard Weikart’s homepage. 5. Some extenuating designs are more than incidentals—There’s historical data justifying objections to this effort to use an anglicized sign to enforce two other words showing up on uniformed placards: “solidarity” and “mutuality”. There was a “solidarity” without meaningful mutuality during the reformation epoch when a sense of urgency to check a protesting of ethics infiltrated ethical objectivity and eventually involved lab and field research, efforts to meet the urgent basic needs of a state’s population though not Catholic. The data, hardly touched by Sander, goes beyond the laboratory or field research or “biogeographical” arena and enters the global dynamics, but still within the unavoidable scope of meaningful empirical human information. TO BE CONTINUED: (Waiting for publication of Gregory Walters’ views on the human genome information) Periechontologetic encompassing the encompassings of Sander Gliboff’s unsynchronized shift from hybrid research to the hubris infringement into modern genetics--The Eastern Church’s native-tongue mission in Moravia, a bible version, the period of intensified enforced mutuality in the distribution of antagonism, i.e., checking protestant reformational inclinations through University infiltration and education of youth of highest rank in the sixteenth century and the ripples in Moravia; Moravian missionary influence of the Wesleys… To be continued in the THIRD CONTINUUM. |
||