I am just mesmerized by Glenn Gould. I do not know if deep inside, I want to be like him, or just admire him for his childish arrogance. He is just a wonderful character.
‘Yaz’ olmalı idi ilk söylenen, ‘oku’ değil. Biz tanrısı değil miyiz bilincimizin? Bizim beynimiz değil mi her suçu unutan? Biz değil miyiz ki her düşünceyi çarpıtan? Yazmalıyız ki sözümüz kök salsın, yazmalıyız ki değişen anlamların geri dönebileceği, yeniden başlayabileceği bir evi olsun. Yazmalıyız ki, suçlarımız ve suçluluklarımız ve hatalarımız yüzümüze çarpılabilsin. Bu değil midir hayatımızın anlamı?
Nov 21, 2008
Nov 19, 2008
Jacqueline Mary du Pré
She was just amazing!!!
I came across Elgar's Cello Concerto in E Min, performed by Jacqueline du Pré. Her performance was, even to unpolished ears like mine, just breathtaking.
Yo-Yo Ma's interpretation of the piece, which I would have taken as the definitive version (as his performance on Bach's Cello Suites), remained by far the weaker one. Remarkable, considering that Yo-Yo Ma is a brilliant artist and both artists play with the same Cello, the fabled Davidov Stradivarius.
Later, it dawned on me that the film Hilary and Jackie, which I saw with E. ages ago, was actually her life story. And a sad sad story it was. A great talent shadowed by immense fears and insecurities, and above all, a horrible disease. The lives of some people are just remarkable. And these lives remind me of a section from Nietzsche's Gay Science:quote:
It is true that there are men who, on the approach of severe pain, hear the very opposite call of command, and never appear more proud, more martial, or more happy than when the storm is brewing; indeed, pain itself provides them with their supreme moments! These are the heroic men, the great pain-bringers of mankind: those few and rare ones who need just the same apology as pain generally — and verily, it should not be denied them. They are forces of the greatest importance for preserving and advancing the species, be it only because they are opposed to smug ease, and do not conceal their disgust at this kind of happiness.
I came across Elgar's Cello Concerto in E Min, performed by Jacqueline du Pré. Her performance was, even to unpolished ears like mine, just breathtaking.
Yo-Yo Ma's interpretation of the piece, which I would have taken as the definitive version (as his performance on Bach's Cello Suites), remained by far the weaker one. Remarkable, considering that Yo-Yo Ma is a brilliant artist and both artists play with the same Cello, the fabled Davidov Stradivarius.
Later, it dawned on me that the film Hilary and Jackie, which I saw with E. ages ago, was actually her life story. And a sad sad story it was. A great talent shadowed by immense fears and insecurities, and above all, a horrible disease. The lives of some people are just remarkable. And these lives remind me of a section from Nietzsche's Gay Science:quote:
It is true that there are men who, on the approach of severe pain, hear the very opposite call of command, and never appear more proud, more martial, or more happy than when the storm is brewing; indeed, pain itself provides them with their supreme moments! These are the heroic men, the great pain-bringers of mankind: those few and rare ones who need just the same apology as pain generally — and verily, it should not be denied them. They are forces of the greatest importance for preserving and advancing the species, be it only because they are opposed to smug ease, and do not conceal their disgust at this kind of happiness.
Nov 17, 2008
Response to religious freedoms
A BRILLIANT RESPONSE BY Radu Ioviţă TO MY PREVIOUS POST ON RELIGIOUS FREEDOMS
This is an interesting topic, but I'm going to disagree with you. I've been reading a book by Sir Peter Ustinov, which he incidentally wrote in German, called "Achtung: Vorurteile!" ("Attention: Prejudice!"), where one of the things which remained engraved in my memory is the observation that not so long ago, in Victorian England, a judge who perhaps had children of his own, with whom he'd sit around the fire in the library and read them stories, would calmly go to Court the next day and sentence a 12-year old girl to HANGING for having stolen a piece of bread. Ustinov remarks, correctly in my view, that the judge would not have been able to contain his surprise if someone had pointed out his behavior as inconsistent at best, schizophrenic and perverse at the worst. This is because the concept of 'social causes' and origins of crime and unrest were not cemented as they are now. One only has to look at Dickens's stories to see how wide-spread and pervasive the problem of inhumane treatment of criminals was in 19th century Europe, especially for children, and especially for the poor. But Victorian England can hardly be described as a religious fundamentalist country – on the contrary, it is the society that produced Darwin, Prestwich, and Huxley. So, given the striking similarity of the two events, what is the common ground between the two? It is the radical acceptance of the letter of the law, of the rigid application of a code in the name of 'order and discipline'. It is fundamentalism, I give you that, but not religious fundamentalism. It submits individual and even collective judgement to an unchangeable code of rules, which in itself has no agency. Imagine that the qadi judging this case had been taught to exercise his judgement in context, and to consult with others and with old Islamic law books. I doubt he'd have come to the same sentence. That's why I will side with your dad on this. And by the way, the article I sent you does mention that convicting a girl of 13 is illegal according to the Shari'a. I don't think I have to remind you of what kinds of
crimes were commited in the name of secular law in places like the Soviet Union, Cambodia, or China...
This is why I'm suspicious of any political faction which promises "order and discipline": they always deliver. Islam seems to be in a peculiar situation. I don't think that any of the countries whose main law today is the Shari'a had it as their main law uninterruptedly since the Middle Ages (I may be wrong about this). But if the Shari'a was reintroduced recently, it is as a reaction against something else – I am supposing that it is Western colonialism and the introduced body of laws that went with it (or Ottoman colonialism – from what I know, Ottoman law was a mix of Shari'a and the various kanuns allowing the ulama's to interpret each case). In any case, it's the return to 'purism' that worries me, not the basis on which it is (rather shabbily) argumented.
I suspect that as our societies become increasingly complex, they tend to become increasingly controlled by ever-growing bodies of law. I remember that a few years ago, a women's advocacy group wanted to petition for the legiferation of their male colleagues' behavior during the period of pre-menstruation!! Needless to say, this is an unworkable situation, but the trend in legiferation in other complex interactional situations such as sexual harassment in the workplace has definitely intensified. In today's world, the easiest thing to become is a criminal! But there is hope: Recently, in Germany, several pilot projects to de-legislate automobile driving have had a huge success – they were simply trying to discourage drivers to blindly follow the rules of traffic, and to exercise their judgement rather than assume that everyone will follow the law flawlessly. To do this, they've simply removed most of the signs from the roads, therefore forcing the drivers to question their priority rights, to slow down, and to look around them.
This is an interesting topic, but I'm going to disagree with you. I've been reading a book by Sir Peter Ustinov, which he incidentally wrote in German, called "Achtung: Vorurteile!" ("Attention: Prejudice!"), where one of the things which remained engraved in my memory is the observation that not so long ago, in Victorian England, a judge who perhaps had children of his own, with whom he'd sit around the fire in the library and read them stories, would calmly go to Court the next day and sentence a 12-year old girl to HANGING for having stolen a piece of bread. Ustinov remarks, correctly in my view, that the judge would not have been able to contain his surprise if someone had pointed out his behavior as inconsistent at best, schizophrenic and perverse at the worst. This is because the concept of 'social causes' and origins of crime and unrest were not cemented as they are now. One only has to look at Dickens's stories to see how wide-spread and pervasive the problem of inhumane treatment of criminals was in 19th century Europe, especially for children, and especially for the poor. But Victorian England can hardly be described as a religious fundamentalist country – on the contrary, it is the society that produced Darwin, Prestwich, and Huxley. So, given the striking similarity of the two events, what is the common ground between the two? It is the radical acceptance of the letter of the law, of the rigid application of a code in the name of 'order and discipline'. It is fundamentalism, I give you that, but not religious fundamentalism. It submits individual and even collective judgement to an unchangeable code of rules, which in itself has no agency. Imagine that the qadi judging this case had been taught to exercise his judgement in context, and to consult with others and with old Islamic law books. I doubt he'd have come to the same sentence. That's why I will side with your dad on this. And by the way, the article I sent you does mention that convicting a girl of 13 is illegal according to the Shari'a. I don't think I have to remind you of what kinds of
crimes were commited in the name of secular law in places like the Soviet Union, Cambodia, or China...
This is why I'm suspicious of any political faction which promises "order and discipline": they always deliver. Islam seems to be in a peculiar situation. I don't think that any of the countries whose main law today is the Shari'a had it as their main law uninterruptedly since the Middle Ages (I may be wrong about this). But if the Shari'a was reintroduced recently, it is as a reaction against something else – I am supposing that it is Western colonialism and the introduced body of laws that went with it (or Ottoman colonialism – from what I know, Ottoman law was a mix of Shari'a and the various kanuns allowing the ulama's to interpret each case). In any case, it's the return to 'purism' that worries me, not the basis on which it is (rather shabbily) argumented.
I suspect that as our societies become increasingly complex, they tend to become increasingly controlled by ever-growing bodies of law. I remember that a few years ago, a women's advocacy group wanted to petition for the legiferation of their male colleagues' behavior during the period of pre-menstruation!! Needless to say, this is an unworkable situation, but the trend in legiferation in other complex interactional situations such as sexual harassment in the workplace has definitely intensified. In today's world, the easiest thing to become is a criminal! But there is hope: Recently, in Germany, several pilot projects to de-legislate automobile driving have had a huge success – they were simply trying to discourage drivers to blindly follow the rules of traffic, and to exercise their judgement rather than assume that everyone will follow the law flawlessly. To do this, they've simply removed most of the signs from the roads, therefore forcing the drivers to question their priority rights, to slow down, and to look around them.
Nov 15, 2008
Religious Freedoms
I am very confused about the boundaries of religious freedom.
A recent news story in BBC, "Stoning Victim 'begged for mercy'" highlights everything that is wrong with religious fundamentalism. It was the story of a 13 year-old rape-victim, who apparently yelled "don't kill me, don't kill me" before she was stoned to death by more than 50 men. Allegedly more than a thousand people watched the stoning. The stoning was, according to the Somalian court authorities, a necessity of Sharia law.
This is just not right! And, I do not know any person, Muslim or non-Muslim alike, who would defend the position of the Somalian court authorities. My father, who becomes a pretty devout Muslim, like millions of other Muslims around the world, would be disgusted with the stoning and condemn it with all his heart. I am sure, he would claim that real Islam is a religion of tolerance and love. I believe in my father's sincerity, but this does not change the fact that many Somalians (and their government) believe in a particular interpretation of Islam that preach violence and inequality of women.
I, as an intellectual, cannot find a reasonable line of thought to define "acceptable religion" and the "unacceptable religion," especially given that religions are not supposed to change or vary. Obviously, categorizing all the world's religions through one extreme incident is completely illogical. However, it brings to mind that there are countless interpretations of Islam (similar to other religions). So, there are questions that I want to raise: when it comes to religious tolerance, who shall we tolerate and who we shall not? How shall we separate willful submission to a greater power and outright corrupt oppression of the disempowered? Most importantly, where shall we draw the line between faith and reason?
PLEASE TUNE IN FOR A BRILLIANT RESPONSE FROM RADU.
A recent news story in BBC, "Stoning Victim 'begged for mercy'" highlights everything that is wrong with religious fundamentalism. It was the story of a 13 year-old rape-victim, who apparently yelled "don't kill me, don't kill me" before she was stoned to death by more than 50 men. Allegedly more than a thousand people watched the stoning. The stoning was, according to the Somalian court authorities, a necessity of Sharia law.
This is just not right! And, I do not know any person, Muslim or non-Muslim alike, who would defend the position of the Somalian court authorities. My father, who becomes a pretty devout Muslim, like millions of other Muslims around the world, would be disgusted with the stoning and condemn it with all his heart. I am sure, he would claim that real Islam is a religion of tolerance and love. I believe in my father's sincerity, but this does not change the fact that many Somalians (and their government) believe in a particular interpretation of Islam that preach violence and inequality of women.
I, as an intellectual, cannot find a reasonable line of thought to define "acceptable religion" and the "unacceptable religion," especially given that religions are not supposed to change or vary. Obviously, categorizing all the world's religions through one extreme incident is completely illogical. However, it brings to mind that there are countless interpretations of Islam (similar to other religions). So, there are questions that I want to raise: when it comes to religious tolerance, who shall we tolerate and who we shall not? How shall we separate willful submission to a greater power and outright corrupt oppression of the disempowered? Most importantly, where shall we draw the line between faith and reason?
PLEASE TUNE IN FOR A BRILLIANT RESPONSE FROM RADU.
Nov 13, 2008
The narrow and non-intersecting paths of knowledge
There are many distinctive shifts happening in the intellectual world. Driven by the immense speed of transmission, the interpretation and transformation of ideas is mind boggling. However, this speed carries with it the risk of creating complex, yet superficial paradigms that unable to comprehend deeper and more subtle connections.
A recent opinion piece, Electronic Publication and the Narrowing of Science and Scholarship , by James A. Evans, tackled a very related issue.
Evans rightfully complained that "as more journal issues came online, the articles referenced tended to be more recent, fewer journals and articles were cited, and more of those citations were to fewer journals and articles. The forced browsing of print archives may have stretched scientists and scholars to anchor findings deeply into past and present scholarship. Searching online is more efficient and following hyperlinks quickly puts researchers in touch with prevailing opinion, but this may accelerate consensus and narrow the range of findings and ideas built upon."
I think, this is an important problem in the era of ultra-focused researh, completely detached academic fields, and poor intellectual public out-reach.
A recent opinion piece, Electronic Publication and the Narrowing of Science and Scholarship , by James A. Evans, tackled a very related issue.
Evans rightfully complained that "as more journal issues came online, the articles referenced tended to be more recent, fewer journals and articles were cited, and more of those citations were to fewer journals and articles. The forced browsing of print archives may have stretched scientists and scholars to anchor findings deeply into past and present scholarship. Searching online is more efficient and following hyperlinks quickly puts researchers in touch with prevailing opinion, but this may accelerate consensus and narrow the range of findings and ideas built upon."
I think, this is an important problem in the era of ultra-focused researh, completely detached academic fields, and poor intellectual public out-reach.
Nov 11, 2008
The Different Perspectives on Evolution in Academia
NOTE TO READER: IF YOU ARE INTERESTED PLEASE DO READ THE COMMENTS BELOW. THEY DO MAKE SOME EXCELLENT POINTS.
Representations of Evolutionary Theory in Turkish Newspapers, a paper for which I am a co-author, will be presented in ECREA conference in Barcelona. Meanwhile, one of the co-authors, Murat Gülsaçan, brought to my attention the following paper by Setälä and Väliverronen, entitled Public acceptance of evolution and the rise of evolutionary discourse. This paper, though a little bit convoluted with jargon, seems to ask a very similar question with our paper, yet through a completely different epistemological glass.
We would argue that evolutionary theory is grounded in the rational thought. We would further argue that rational thought has a legitimate logical basis to make better predictions than other epistemologies. Setälä and Väliverronen, if I did not completely misunderstand what they were trying to communicate in their abstract, would argue that evolution is yet another kind of "rationalist discourse." It is very surprising, and somehow unnerving, to see this distinction within academia.
Representations of Evolutionary Theory in Turkish Newspapers, a paper for which I am a co-author, will be presented in ECREA conference in Barcelona. Meanwhile, one of the co-authors, Murat Gülsaçan, brought to my attention the following paper by Setälä and Väliverronen, entitled Public acceptance of evolution and the rise of evolutionary discourse. This paper, though a little bit convoluted with jargon, seems to ask a very similar question with our paper, yet through a completely different epistemological glass.
We would argue that evolutionary theory is grounded in the rational thought. We would further argue that rational thought has a legitimate logical basis to make better predictions than other epistemologies. Setälä and Väliverronen, if I did not completely misunderstand what they were trying to communicate in their abstract, would argue that evolution is yet another kind of "rationalist discourse." It is very surprising, and somehow unnerving, to see this distinction within academia.
Nov 10, 2008
Obama ile ilgili küçük bir not
Unutmamalıyız ki, Obama dünya başkanı seçilmedi, Amerika başkanı seçildi. Kendi ulusunun refahı için Bush yönetiminden çok daha başarılı işler çıkaracağı neredeyse kesin. Ama Obama'nın getireceği yeni politikaların dünya için daha iyi olacağı gibi bir hayale kapılmamalı. Amerika başkanı olarak Obama, Amerika için çalışacak.
Bütün dünyada oluşan umut dalgasını 8 sene süren irrasyonel, militarist ve cibiliyetsiz Bush iktidarının bitişine bağlarsak ne ala. Eğer Obama'dan dünyayı değiştirmesini bekliyorsak, Obama'nın Amerika'nın, bir ulus devletin başkanı olarak seçildiğini unutmamız lazım. Obama, zafer konuşmasında da dediği gibi, Amerika'lılar için değişim vadediyor, dünya için değil.
Bütün dünyada oluşan umut dalgasını 8 sene süren irrasyonel, militarist ve cibiliyetsiz Bush iktidarının bitişine bağlarsak ne ala. Eğer Obama'dan dünyayı değiştirmesini bekliyorsak, Obama'nın Amerika'nın, bir ulus devletin başkanı olarak seçildiğini unutmamız lazım. Obama, zafer konuşmasında da dediği gibi, Amerika'lılar için değişim vadediyor, dünya için değil.
Nov 5, 2008
Yaşlı beyaz adamlar ve bir siyah adam arasında yanlız bir Türk
Obama, Obama, Obama...
4 kasım akşamı, bir toplantı için gittiğim Chicago Üniversitesi'nin Hutchinson Hall denen büyük salonunda, Obama'nın ismi hep bir ağızdan tekrarlanıyordu. Duvarlara asılmış, yaşlı, beyaz, saygın görünüşlü akademiyenlerin portrelerine çarpıp bu ses, genç ve yaşlı, sakallı, atkılı, kepli, pipolu ve ister istemez beyaz bir akademik kalabalığa geri dönüyordu.
O salonda, çevremde mutlulukla, umutla, içtenlikle "başkanlarının" zafer konuşmasını dinleyen kalabalığın içinde kendimi yapayanlız hissettim. Birlikte, kendilerinden değişik birisini liderleri olarak seçebildikleri için duydukları gururu paylaşamadığım için hüzünlendim. Ülkelerinin kendini tekrar tekrar yenileyebileceğine, bir gün içerisinde kendilerini değiştirebileceklerine ve "bir kişinin dünyayı değiştirebileceğine" dair belki naif ama dürüst inançlarını kıskandım.
Yarın yeni bir gün olacak Amerika için. İronik bir şekilde, Obama'nın, yani siyah Kenya'lı Müslüman bir babanın, çocukluğunu Endonezya'da geçirmiş oğlunun, Amerikan başkanı olarak seçilmesi Amerika'nın, yavaş yavaş elinden kaybettiği global hegemonyasını yeniden, daha ideolojik kanallardan yapılandırmasına önayak olacak. Silahlara ve ekonomik güce dayanmayan bu yeni liberal akımının Türkiye, Avrupa, Ortadoğu ve dünya üzerindeki etkisini ise bekleyip göreceğiz.
4 kasım akşamı, bir toplantı için gittiğim Chicago Üniversitesi'nin Hutchinson Hall denen büyük salonunda, Obama'nın ismi hep bir ağızdan tekrarlanıyordu. Duvarlara asılmış, yaşlı, beyaz, saygın görünüşlü akademiyenlerin portrelerine çarpıp bu ses, genç ve yaşlı, sakallı, atkılı, kepli, pipolu ve ister istemez beyaz bir akademik kalabalığa geri dönüyordu.
O salonda, çevremde mutlulukla, umutla, içtenlikle "başkanlarının" zafer konuşmasını dinleyen kalabalığın içinde kendimi yapayanlız hissettim. Birlikte, kendilerinden değişik birisini liderleri olarak seçebildikleri için duydukları gururu paylaşamadığım için hüzünlendim. Ülkelerinin kendini tekrar tekrar yenileyebileceğine, bir gün içerisinde kendilerini değiştirebileceklerine ve "bir kişinin dünyayı değiştirebileceğine" dair belki naif ama dürüst inançlarını kıskandım.
Yarın yeni bir gün olacak Amerika için. İronik bir şekilde, Obama'nın, yani siyah Kenya'lı Müslüman bir babanın, çocukluğunu Endonezya'da geçirmiş oğlunun, Amerikan başkanı olarak seçilmesi Amerika'nın, yavaş yavaş elinden kaybettiği global hegemonyasını yeniden, daha ideolojik kanallardan yapılandırmasına önayak olacak. Silahlara ve ekonomik güce dayanmayan bu yeni liberal akımının Türkiye, Avrupa, Ortadoğu ve dünya üzerindeki etkisini ise bekleyip göreceğiz.
Oct 19, 2008
Felsefi Diyaloglar III
İSTANBUL, EMIRGAN'DA ÇAYBAHÇESİ. BİR TARAF RUMELİ HİSARI... ÖNLERİNDE SEMAVER
Perihan Pekbilir Görece (PPG). Orhan. Bu son konuşmamızda çok fazla üstüme geldin, lütfen durumu entellektüel düzlemin dışına çıkarmayalım.
Orhan Elitoğlu Düşüntaş (OED). Yahu neden bunu bu kadar büyütüyorsun ki. Bu kadar eşitsizlik arasından ve bunca tartışma odağı içinden, cinsiyetlerimizi ön plana çıkarıyorsun ikili ilişkimizle ile ilgili konularda.
PPG. Daha buraya gelirken gözlerinle yedin beni be! Cinsiyeti mi kalmış. Artık şu tartışmayı bitirelim de, sonra şeytan görsün yüzünü.
OED [İçinden]. [Hay Allahım çattık vallahi] - Tamam tamam. kusura bakma.
PPG. Neyse. Ne anlatıyordum. Hah. Putnam diyordum.
OED. Evet evet. Gerçeklik hakkında konuşuyorduk.
PPG. Tamam. Şimdi bu Putnam ki aslında “eski okullu” bir Princeton filozofu bu adam, gerçeklik kavramı üzerine basit bir düşünce deneyi yaratıyor. Bu düşünce deneyinde iki farklı dünya düşlüyor: birisi bizim dünyamız, diğeri ise bizimkine ikiz bir dünya. Bu iki farklı dünyada herşey ama herşey birbiri ile aynı. İnsanlar, dağlar, güneş... Tamamen ikiz iki dünya. Sadece tek bir fark var, su bizde H2O iken orada farklı bir kimyasal yapı, mesela X2Y. Ama bu iki sıvının diğer bütün özellikleri birbirinin aynı. Bu durumda...
OED. Peki. Bu nasıl olacak tam olarak anlayamadım, ama hadi olsun bakalım.
PPG. Şimdi o dünyada bir Orhan'da var. Senin ikizin tamamen aynı. Ve o da, herşeyiyle suya benzeyen X2Y maddesine "su" diyor. Bütün herşey dilsel olarak aynı olsa da, iki su aslında birbirinin aynı değil. Bu da demektir ki, H2O ve X2Y gerçektir ve dahası bu gerçeklikleri kendi içlerinde saklıdır.
OED. Çok afedersin ama bu neden çok önemli bir "düşünce deneyi." Herhangi bir kimyacı da bunu sana söyleyebilirdi.
PPG. İyi de bu düşünce deneyi çok önemli bir felsefi tartışmanın odak noktası. Net olarak söylemek gerekirse, sorulan soru, şeylerin içsel anlamları var mı, yoksa bütün anlamlar (pragmatiklerin söyledikleri gibi) dışsal olarak "signifier"lar tarafından mı yükleniyor:
OED. Anladım. Sonuç olarak H2O’nun ve X2Y’nin “gerçek” fiziksel varlıklar olduğu ve de bu varlıkların diskur dışında da var oldukları konusunda hemfikiriz. Ama sen bunların anlaşılmasının, dil içinde yeniden yaratılmasının ve de iletişim sırasındaki hareketlerinin tamamen görece olduğunu savunuyorsun anladığım kadarı ile. Eğer ki doğa bilimlerini düşünürsek, sana tam katılamıyorum, ama tam da reddedemiyorum. Tarih veya daha “text” ile meşgul alanlara ise istersen sonra girelim çok dağılacak yoksa. Ama tabi ki erkek olduğumdan dolayı korkuyorum azıcık dikte ettirmekten.
PPG – Korkma Orhan’cığım, açık konuşmak gerekirse, kendi sosyal habitatımızda konuşma alanımızı yarattık. Garip bir dinamik oluşturduk. Ama yine de sen dikkati elden bırakma ve unutma, senden, ikram beklemiyorum. Gerekirse kendim konuşmayı dikte ederim ya da bitiririm, sen o yüzden sakin ol!!! Korkma, devam et...
OED. [İyice maymun olduk yahu, neyse...] Tamam peki. Benim sorunum şu. Özellikle fizikte, aynı zamanda kimya ve biyolojide çoğu zaman tekrarlanabilir ve değişmeyen bilgilere emprik yöntemlerle ulaşılabiliyor. Yani bilimsel epistemoloji ile değişmeyen ortaklıklar, sabit kategoriler ve aynı koşullar yaratıldığında her zaman tekrarlanabilen deneyler oluşturulabiliyor. Burada pek bir görecelilik göremiyorum. Diğer bir deyişle X2Y ve H2O'nun gerekli bilimsel epistomoloji sürecinden geçirilerek anlamlarının ayrılabileceğini düşünüyorum. Burada da Popper'ın aslında önemli olduğunu düşünüyorum.
PPG. Sen öyle düşünüyorsun da, o zaman sen Popper'a girmeden hemen Whorf'un meşhur yakıt bidonu örneğini vereyeyim. Unutma Whorf bir mühendis olarak yetişmiş, o yüzden sakın bu adam gazdan, bidondan ne anlar diye önyargılar geliştirme. Neyse, Benjamin (Whorf) abimizin dikkatini çekiyor ki, üzerinde dolu yazan yakıt bidonlarının yanında insanlar dikkatli davranırlarken, üzerinde boş yazan bidonların yanında insanlar çok daha rahat davranıyorlar, sigara içiyorlar falan. Ama fiziksel olarak üzerinde boş yazan bidonlarda, arta kalan yakıt ve daha önemlisi açığa çıkmış yakıt gazları var. Bu da bidonları aslında daha tehlikeli yapıyor. Ama insanlar kafalarında tamamen fiziksel bir sıfat olan ve bidonlarda sıvı olmadığını belirten "boş" kelimesini, aynı zamanda "tehlikesiz" olarak da anlıyorlar. Diğer bir deyişle kelime anlamlar kazanıyor. Whorf bunları değişik Amerika kıtası kabilelerinde inceleyerek örneklerini çoğaltıyor ve iyice ileri giderek insan grupları arasında mesela zaman kavramının nasıl değişik şekillerde anlaşıldığını ortaya koyuyor.
OED. Gerçekten çok ilginç. Bu tabi ki Chomsky'nin ve daha sonra Pinker'ın ortaya koyduğu teorilerden çok daha farklı.
PPG. Orhan kusura bakma benim kalkmam lazım. Bugün fazla garip davranmadın, o yüzden teşekkür ederim.
OED. Önemli değil, teşekkür ederim bu haftada geldiğin için. Haftaya yine buluşuyoruz değil mi? Hatta bu sefer seni bir akşam yemeğine çıkarayayım olmaz mı?
PPG. Yuh Orhan... Yuh. İki dakika aklın başka bir şeye çalışmıyor mu?
OED. Niye yahu.
PPG. Benim Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Bilim Kulübünde bir konuşmam var, ondan önce kulüp odasında buluşalım istersen. Ama artık bana asılmayı bırak Orhan, lütfen.
OED. Tamam tamam peki. [Bu hatun yemin ediyorum, bu nazından çekici geliyor bana herhalde] Haftaya kadar hoşçakal o zaman.
Oct 7, 2008
Maverics, ponds and oceans
Who you callin' a Maverick is a very interesting article in NYT about a Texan family, who carries the name Maverick. It is one of those "only in America" stories.
I, being an "alien" in America, am fascinated by American politics, albeit dissappointed. It is really sad that the American political discourse is trapped in a shallow pond. It is even sadder that this pond lies just a couple of steps from an ocean of interesting ideas.
I, being an "alien" in America, am fascinated by American politics, albeit dissappointed. It is really sad that the American political discourse is trapped in a shallow pond. It is even sadder that this pond lies just a couple of steps from an ocean of interesting ideas.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
