>
> I am not sure that there is really a contradiction. (First, I don't think
> talking about "orderliness in nature in itself" is the kind of thing you
> can talk about, since you never see nature in itself.)
I wasn't addressing you, but chuck. sorry. as for the statement in parentheses, that's what i was saying a social constructionist would say .... which wouldn't be surprising considering your interest in, who was it?, Heidegger?
There are several
> different meanings of "orderliness." There is "nonrandomness," and nature
> is definitely nonrandom. It has patterns. There is also "meaningfulness,"
> in the sense of "this hunk of nature is this thing" and "this hunk of
> nature is that other thing," and "these hunks are related in this way,"
> and "concepts" attach to these hunks. But nature is not divided into neat
> little hunks -- it is _fuzzy_. There are patterns, but which patterns are
> perceived and how they are linked together depend on the framework in
> which the person perceives them, what he or she thinks the world is.
I think I would leave out the part where you make the descriptive claim: "nature is not divided into neat little hunks -- it is _fuzzy_."
Maybe I misunderstand, but aren't you now saying that you can access what nature is like, unmediated by any framework. how do you know that this fuzziness is what nature is like?
shag
-- http://cleandraws.com Wear Clean Draws ('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)