>I know how to coordinate my body in a completely different sense than I
>know (or rather don't know in my case) the mechanical and physical laws
>that allow that coordination. Chris
>
>--------
>
>I've got most of a theory of mind that explains how your knowledge of
>body-in-space-and-motion and your knowledge of physical laws are one and
>the same. The former forms the foundation for the latter.
>
>Anyway, why get hung up on the idea that babies explore and learn, as
>the preamble to science? It's a simple proposition, maybe right, maybe
>wrong.
>
>I suspect a Heideggerian-Aristoltian objection at work. So make the
>objection explicit.
>
>CG
:)
It stinks of the classic romanticist argument against science. if we could *just* get rid of society, then we'd be closer to nature and understand it better. the problem is modernity, is society; it's corrupt and we need to get rid of it, via method, via whatever, but whatever it is, if we can unburden ourselves of the shackles of big, bad evil society, then we can get as close to nature as possible and hear it speak to us in the pureness of our near-state-of-nature-union-being-as-one-and-having-overcome-this-horrible-alienation-blabbedyfuckinblah-we-can-at-once-be-reunited-in-wholeness-with-nature. amen.
shag