[FRIAM] What is Wealth for?

[jon zingale]

Right. I am not claiming to speak to the hyper-game, but rather something
closer to the pooh-rabbit discussion. I feel that I am witnessing
sciency-minded analytic types groping around for what other modalities
exist, still will one foot on the "If there were a different kind of
rigorous thinking, well then it would be science, and therefore inside of my
science" boat. I am suggesting at the very least the work of Deleuze on
"Difference and Repetition" as a starting point. Much of developed
scientific thought, to its praise and its folly, is extensional thought.
OTOH, there are many beginnings toward a science of the intensional, though
much of it remains in wait as philosophy. It seems most often encountered in
the "softer" sciences: biology, evolutionary theory, psychology. For
instance, riffing off of my discussion with EricC last Friday, the American
naturalists[1] seek a non-representational science of mind, that is, one
that is not amenable to substitutions and symmetry claims. Rather, there is
something agent-based in its explanation. For instance, when SteveG makes
the leap to Feynman's integrals and duality arguments, he loses Nick, and
not just because SteveG is using sexier science, but because SteveG leaves
the project of American Naturalism. This is all to say, that when we look
inside even the node of Science, we see irreconcilable structure as it ought
to be.

To some extent, the emphasis on the low dimensional nature of distance in
Heidegger misses the point. The end of the frontier and the reality of our
compact environment confers a radical change in psychological kind, and a
change in topology is no trivial matter. Anyway, back to wealth.

[1] Radical Embodied Cognitive Science, pg 28



--
Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/