KARL JASPERS FORUM

TA31 (vanFrassen / Feyerabend)

Commentary 13 (to C12 by McCaffrey)

CONSTRUCTION AND AGREEMENT
by Herbert FJ Müller
12 September 2003, posted 16 September 2003

{1}
Assuming for the moment that the 0-D position is warranted, I respond here briefly to a few of the points you mention, in the hope of further discussion. You say (C12<2>) that constructivism is unsatisfactory but not in what respect. That leaves me guessing, as follows. Radical or epistemological constructivism in the strict sense, that is to say if it consistently denies the possibility of given structures, is unsatisfactory in case you want it for mind-external guidance. It cannot provide certainty from outside you, neither of knowledge, nor for action. But it can serve as a negative guideline.

{2}
Objectivity <3-4> (or positive truth) is a mistaken view, no matter who promotes it (unless it is used in an as-if or working manner). There are no certain structures except in the sense of experiential reliability or usefulness. But it is possible to test positive affirmations in a 0-D analysis, which could in principle serve as a commonly acceptable method. Perhaps this would eventually be demonstrable not only for science but even for religions, which are, due to conflicting external-truth assertions, often notoriously incompatible with each other. The starting base here would be an analysis of the functional role of religion for human individuals and societies, and then criteria for their benefits and drawbacks. Since you write <8> that Buddhism is your favorite, I guess that an absence of positive theistic teachings is not foreign to your thinking.

{3}
Feyerabend <3ff> came from positivism, which was gradually deconstructed from the inside by Popper and others. Feyerabend went further than most, in saying that rationality forms islands in a sea of irrationality. This I think is in principle equivalent with construction from no structures. In particular, the deconstruction of the boundary between subject and object <6> is fundamental not only for particle physics and evolutionary psychology but everywhere (including religion, as mystics have long known).

{4}
Morality <7> cannot be expected to be fixed forever, although religions provide guidelines. If we consider religions (and science too) as instruments for humanity rather than as dispensers of truth, communication and eventually agreements might become easier. What do you think of truly global ecumenical efforts ? My own opinion is that such undertakings are essential. Consider for instance the recent conference in Berlin where the Dalai Lama praised the wishes of Catholics and Protestants (and others) for unification. This kind of movement could help humanity, I would say, and it is entirely compatible with 0-D.

{5}
I would also be interested in your opinion on the paper on incarnation and apeiron by Moore (C1 to TA51).

----------------------------------------

Herbert FJ Müller