From: dtg001@dunix.drake.edu (Soli Deo Gloria)
Subject: A response to various criticisms of MINDWALK 
Keywords: philosophy Capra dialectic
Organization: Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa, USA
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 01:18:10 GMT

My sincerest apologies if this is a duplicate post!  My first attempt
at posting this message did not seem to work... trying again.


Well!  Quite the unexpected set of responses!  :-)

      I  find  it quite necessary to formulate a response of  my  own,
given  the nature of the responses to my original posting.  The  first
thing I need to point out is the fact that, before seeing this film, I
had never even heard of Fritjof Capra.  I think, perhaps, somewhere, I
may  have  heard  his brother's name, the director,  but  certain  not
Fritjof's.   I  had no idea that he made some of the strange  mystical
claims that he does.

      Quite  a bit more important is the simple fact that _I_ did  not
see  in  the film the things that others have seen in the film.   Now,
perhaps my view is a bit different than that of many filmgoers. I  am,
for  example,  _highly_ interested in physics (it will  be  my  second
degree  program,  once  I complete the current  one,  Church  Music  &
Organ).   I _know_ what goes on in the world of physics and  I  _know_
that it's not as joechip@hardy.u.washington.edu (Erich Vandenloos) put
it:
          3.  He  is also a damnable liar, quite willing  to
          lie  about  his betters, and eager to mislead  his
          audience into thinking that what physicists do all
          day is sit around thinking deep thoughts about how
          interconnected everything is, and  how  we've  all
          got to give up physics anyway so we won't have  to
          build  icky bombs. But of course physicists  don't
          work that way, as Capra knows full well, which  is
          probably why he gave up physics.  Physicists  work
          hard. Capra just rakes in the bucks.
I  never  got  the idea that physicist are doing the  sort  of  things
mentioned above.  I did get the idea, as I stated, and as I  also  got
from the film "A Brief History of Time" that physics, intriguingly, is
not beginning to ask, and even put forth some answers to, metaphysical
questions.

      Here, another important point of clarification must be made.  My
thanks  to brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) for pointing  out
the error that I should have realized would occur.  By "metaphysics" I
most  certainly  do _not_ mean "...a synonym for 'magical'  or  'anti-
rational' metaphysics."  I mean, as Webster's so aptly puts  it,  "the
branch  of  philosophy that systematically investigates the nature  of
first  principles and problems of ultimate reality."  I am in  no  way
trying to imply mysticism.  And, please, no flames to the effect  that
I'm  talking  negatively  about  mysticism.   Mysticism  has  had  and
continues  to  have its areas of application.  I don't  think  that  a
discussion of physics is one of them.

       I   would   also   like   to  take  up   another   point   that
joechip@hardy.u.washington.edu (Erich Vandenloos) mentioned:
          He  accuses science of being a tool for  the  evil
          exploiters,  of  being  too  "male"   (an   insult
          according  to  him and his cronies  I  guess),  of
          blinding  us  to our connection with one  another,
          turning us all into robots (ooops, I guess  that's
          Marcuse. Well they're pretty similar.)
I  will  be the first to admit that I was a bit puzzled by the  French
Physicist's  little  tantrum on masculinity and  all  of  its  wrongs.
However,  the poet says something to the effect of "let's get  out  of
here.   This  place is straining our relationship" or  something  like
that.   To  me,  I saw rather clearly at that point that  the  woman's
ravings about masculine nature were not to be taken seriously, but  as
exactly that:  ravings.  I do also believe, however, that there was  a
point  to be made somewhere in the little 'scene' she makes.  It  all,
of course, depends on your definitions of masculinity and femininity.

      _From  the movie_ I got the idea that masculinity was  meant  to
mean  those  things  that are stereotypically  male,  e.g.  dominance,
power, strength, "emotion-less-ness", etc. and femininity those things
that  are  stereotypically female, e.g. caring, tenderness, intuition,
etc.   As  you  and  I  both know, human beings  _never_,  thank  God,
completely  fit  a stereotype.  Men nearly always have characteristics
that,   in  the  film,  are  presented  as  'feminine,'  i.e.  caring,
tenderness,  etc. and women nearly always possess things  'masculine,'
i.e.  dominance,  strength, etc. to some degree.  I certainly  do  not
believe  that the film was trying to make _males_ look like some  evil
beings.   I  think it did point out the importance of  there  being  a
balance  between  the  two  stereotypical  images  of  "maleness"  and
"femaleness."  The movie then points out that such a balance does  not
exist in the world of politics, a point to be, I think, well taken.

      Now,  once again, I must say, perhaps Capra _was_ trying to  say
that  "maleness"  is  evil  and overbearing and  responsible  for  the
destruction of the earth.  As I said earlier, I am not familiar enough
with his thought to make a judgment to that effect.  All I'm saying is
that the _movie_ did not convey that idea to me.

      On  to  the  next point of contention.  :)  bill@kean.ucs.mun.ca
(Bill Garland) had this to say:
          But  what  I object to from the original  post  to
          which  you replied was "let's limit the discussion
          to those who have seen the movie or read the book"
          or    something.  (I'm  not  quoting  exactly   by
          %include)
          Ha!  Limit  the discussion indeed. Hardly.  To  do
          that   you  need  to  make  yourself  a  moderated
          newsgroup.  This  is  Usenet, where  you  couldn't
          limit  discussions even if there was a good reason
          to.
I  think, perhaps, a small amount of calm rationalization would  point
out to you the reason why I made that statement.  If I were to start a
discussion  on  the philosophy of, oh, who shall we  use?,  let's  say
Immanuel Kant, I would want the early stages of the discussion  to  be
limited to those who know something about what the man thought.  Makes
sense,   no?   Certainly,  as  the  discussion  progressed  and   more
information about what he stood for was conveyed to the Usenet, others
would   then  have  the  background  information  necessary  to   make
contributions.   It's the same reason that professors with  doctorates
get  irate  when  freshmen start questioning them in  front  of  their
peers,  but aren't quite so upset when an upperclassman has  something
to present.  Sorry if that was taken the wrong way.

      My  apologies  for  the typo.  The word "sentient"  somehow  got
severely mangled.  :)
     I would like to mention the fact that I did not purchase the book
as I said  I would.   As I said in a reply  to an eMail response to my
original posting:
          BTW - In light of the responses mentioned, I think
          the  film is probably very different from the book
          upon which it is based.  I took a look at the book
          today at the bookstore and decided not to purchase
          it.   The  negative  issues which  the  first  two
          respondents to my posting pointed out were not  at
          all  apparent to me in the film.  Perhaps  I  just
          missed them.
From  what  I  can tell of what people have said about  the  book,  it
indeed  is quite different from the film.  Evidently, having read  the
book  first makes the movie look a lot more like the book.  I wouldn't
know.

      Finally,  and  definitely  most importantly,  I  would  like  to
highlight  some of the points that were made by another respondent  to
my post, hunter@nsslsun.nssl.uoknor.edu (Steve Hunter):
          I  see  in this thread a lot of flaming of  Capra,
          mostly general or vague attacks doused in emotion.
          Very little in the way of concrete examples in his
          book  that  are  taken to task in  an  analytical,
          cohesive   fashion.   Come   on,   you   so-called
          scientists!!!   With  these  emotional   diatribes
          against  someone  you consider irrational,  you're
          falling on your own sword.
          ...
          Flame  away, but please, 1)Keep the mind OPEN;  2)
          If  you  use scientific principles as the standard
          of   reason,  use  them  yourselves  -  don't   be
          hypocritical.
I  must point out that, even with my limited background in philosophy,
I find dialectics to be of the _utmost_ importance.  Again, Webster's:
"A  method  of  argument  or  exposition  that  systematically  weighs
contradictory  facts or ideas with a view to the resolution  of  their
real  or apparent contradictions."   I have spent the past hour-and-a-
half putting together a careful response to the ideas presented to me.
I have been careful to weigh what has been said and have attempted  to
understand  it.   Indeed, nothing is ever said without _some_  reason.
Because   of   that,  every  idea  must  be  given  the   respect   of
consideration,  even  if  you _desperately_  disagree.   When  one  is
reduced  to  name  calling and band-wagon technique,  dialectic  falls
apart  and no real headway can be made on the subject being discussed.
I beg of you, let's try to remain calm and rational.

Damien Guay
dtg001@dunix.drake.edu