Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] learning to appreciate pessimists

[Robert Lindauer]

avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com wrote:

>--- Claribel <claribel at intermessage.com> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Claribel: This is my position exactly. I am both New
>>Age and 
>>ranshumanist  -- yes, some people do exist who
>>embrace both metaphysics and 
>>advanced science. I do not regard them as
>>incompatible, if each is kept in 
>>its proper sphere. I wonder if anyone here is
>>familiar with the Integral 
>>approach of Ken Wilber?
>>(http://wilber.shambhala.com/)
>>    
>>
>In my opinion the relationship of metaphysics to
>science is that metaphysics encompasses science and as
>science grows, metaphysics shrinks. Perhaps someday
>science will understand all and there will be no more
>metaphysics left, but then again - maybe not.
>  
>

If you mean by "metaphysics" merely "not science" then the whether or 
not something is science is just a question of what you call science.  
In modern science, science is understood as technique - control of the 
environment.  Metaphysics is also sometimes called ontology - the theory 
of being-in-general.  The likelihood that it would become 'merely a 
science' has been debated at length by competent and sometimes honest 
people for centuries.  I suggest that the problem is significantly 
solved by post-modernism which regards ontological decisions as policy 
statements and therefore not techniques except in an extended sense of 
"technique" and that Levinas' desire to inject morality in our decision 
process for high-level policy decisions is the right one.

Best wishes,

Robbie Lindauer