I disagree with the last point. The historians are there and they have been speaking since the dawn of time, but rarely heard, and although very articulated, they certainly “pay no praise or wages”, which in this world is obviously a bad way to promote your work.
Why would the fact that a magnolia hadn’t elaborated a grammar be an obstacle of it sharing the world of events? QBism reminds me of the shortcomings of all naturalistic views, and if it were only because of the unfortunate chosen name, that of E.O. Wilson’s “box theory” in particular. Which in the best scenario is shared by the entire scientific priesthood, and in the worst by the entire Westernized culture:
“[Our self-understanding as human beings placed in nature] exists in a box. It is confined there because sensations and thought are ruled by human nature, and human nature is also in a box. To put together both proximate and ultimate causes is the key to self understanding, the means to see ourselves as we truly are and then to explore outside the box.” (1)
As much as I admire him as a biologist, you cannot but feel sad every time a scientist touches on the human. This obsession (it cannot be called anything else but an obsession) of placing ourselves as those who reach “outside the box”, or even as the privileged view of a box that sees itself. A world that exists “for us” as an ultimate substance, which as you correctly stated dates back to Aristotle, is the mother of all quimeras and the source of all evils.
I disagree with the last point. The historians are there and they have been speaking since the dawn of time, but rarely heard, and although very articulated, they certainly “pay no praise or wages”, which in this world is obviously a bad way to promote your work.
Why would the fact that a magnolia hadn’t elaborated a grammar be an obstacle of it sharing the world of events? QBism reminds me of the shortcomings of all naturalistic views, and if it were only because of the unfortunate chosen name, that of E.O. Wilson’s “box theory” in particular. Which in the best scenario is shared by the entire scientific priesthood, and in the worst by the entire Westernized culture:
“[Our self-understanding as human beings placed in nature] exists in a box. It is confined there because sensations and thought are ruled by human nature, and human nature is also in a box. To put together both proximate and ultimate causes is the key to self understanding, the means to see ourselves as we truly are and then to explore outside the box.” (1)
As much as I admire him as a biologist, you cannot but feel sad every time a scientist touches on the human. This obsession (it cannot be called anything else but an obsession) of placing ourselves as those who reach “outside the box”, or even as the privileged view of a box that sees itself. A world that exists “for us” as an ultimate substance, which as you correctly stated dates back to Aristotle, is the mother of all quimeras and the source of all evils.
(1) EOW, “The Social Conquest of Earth”, p.242
For anybody reading here's a nice video clip about the "tea incident":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xP22qvdF8YY