Many thanks for the upload, in addition I'd like to share one of my recent notes ( inspired by the newest fashion: a greed for consciousness/hunger for knowledge, wisdom... ) CONSCIOUSNESS = ATTENTION ≠ understanding, but knowledge of presence.
Bravo. Like a poet who puts words on vague unformulated feelings, Tim Ingold, you put with words your finger smack on the current trouble with science and its associated big data, objectivity, neutrality, distance, protocols, methodology, jargon... i.e., lack of "correspondance".
He's a clever thinker but his characterisation of science is unfair. If may have been the case in the distant past that curious people had to destroy a sample of the world to extract information - e.g. killing a frog for anatomy like a hard ball thrown at a surface, to use his analogy However, contemporary science is more like a rubber ball and science measures the varying rates of return to learn about a substance. I've noticed that Ingold sets up these initial premises to better make his final point and not all of these premises are fair.
Tim Ingold is so worth listening to.
Terimakasih banyak
Many thanks for the upload, in addition I'd like to share one of my recent notes ( inspired by the newest fashion: a greed for consciousness/hunger for knowledge, wisdom... )
CONSCIOUSNESS = ATTENTION ≠ understanding, but knowledge of presence.
dgt
WOW!
Bravo. Like a poet who puts words on vague unformulated feelings, Tim Ingold, you put with words your finger smack on the current trouble with science and its associated big data, objectivity, neutrality, distance, protocols, methodology, jargon... i.e., lack of "correspondance".
29:34 Dewey
I listen to this at 2.00
He's a clever thinker but his characterisation of science is unfair. If may have been the case in the distant past that curious people had to destroy a sample of the world to extract information - e.g. killing a frog for anatomy like a hard ball thrown at a surface, to use his analogy However, contemporary science is more like a rubber ball and science measures the varying rates of return to learn about a substance. I've noticed that Ingold sets up these initial premises to better make his final point and not all of these premises are fair.