Tuesday, October 23, 2007

Gagdad Bob on Science, Atheism, Intuition and Polanyi

A funky little reflection but maybe worth a read if you're a Michael Polanyi enthusiast (and I am).

Via Pajamas Media

8 comments:

Athos said...

I dunna, Porthos. Gagdad seems to be one of those "I'll out nihilist the nihilistical deconstructionists and makeum think I'm really one of them, but THEN show my true colours in a multilayerable phantasmagorical prolepitcality that leaves everyone gasping at my thrilling James Joycean word usementisms" sort of guy.

There is a bit of hubris here, methinks, or at least a bent to pyrotechnical synapses that really busts my chops. I did that kind of stuff once for a 10th grade publication, then it lost its novelty.

Gagdad Bob said...

I'll bite. Could we see a sample of your pyrotechnical writing?

Athos said...

Thanks for asking. Done. Been there done that.

Cousin Dupree said...

Oh please, don't be such a diva. We want to know if your pyrotechnic juvenilia actually surpasses Gagdad Bob's meditations. If so, your adult corpus represents a worrisome decline, and should be cause for concern.

Athos said...

Cuz, meaning no disrespect to GB, it just isn't my cup of tea. My "sample" is in the first comment, for what it's worth ...

Porthos said...

Man, youziz already started a phlame wore before I could have a chance to look at the comments to my humble link!

How am I supposed to referee such a thing, what with my complicated team loyalties and such.

Thanks for the visit GB and diva. Don't be put off.

I thought there was a little riddling in GB's reflection, but not enough to create an unfavorable signal/noise ratio. I thought the use of Polanyi was good. The main point (so I thought) was that in the very act of doing science, our revered scientists are already crossing over into the mystery zone (body/spirit/soul what have you), a zone for which our naive materialists (Harris, Dawkins, et al) will never be able to account. (Does that clause work? Youziz are making me stylistically self-conch-us).

Or, science must necessarily be supra-scientific.

A technical question: GB, how did you know that you had been linked enough to drop over here? The same thing has happened with Anchoress and Fausta. I'm a little in the dark about the mechanisms of trackbacking . . . (among other things)

Athos said...

Mea culpa, Porthos. We always say more about ourselves than others in any critique - which, in my defense, I wouldn't put on GB's blog. Only in the comments here at 4Ms.

M'point is that if I did the James Joycean thing now, I'd feel like I was showing off and trying to accrue ontological substantiation from others' fascination with my pyrotechnicality. I haven't a clue re: GB. Perhaps it is just the way he normally speaks; if so, and again, mea culpa.

BTW, the picture of you holding yon baby, GB, says reams and all exceedingly admirable.

Porthos said...

I think GB writes that way all the time, Ath--at least it has been so when I followed links to One Cosmos in the past. It must be pretty much automatic for GB by now. I tend to be drawn to smart folks with idiosyncratic writing tics like that, at least when the writing style is combined with spiritual/psychological insights and some serious mojo in the background knowledge department.

At any rate, we do get a lot of visits from distinguished PJM affiliated personnel, huh? If that's what it takes to get um to come over, keep it up Ath!

It helps me feel, you know, ontologically substantiated and everything.