|
|
| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Example from Humanities and Social Sciences |
| Posted by: | Andre Hopper |
| Date/Time: | 2011/10/9 12:45:39 |
|
It's too long ago when I read Gablik's book, so I take your argument at face value and say "fair enough". Nevertheless, the general point (whether Gablik made it like this or not), and assuming I understand you correctly, is that certain developments in social history seem to share the same sort of qualitative progression of hierarchical relations. E.g. in the case of art, the advent of euclidean perspective marks a distinctive qualitative development akin to the onset of concrete operations' overcoming of an egocentric perspective. In the case of literature, the advent of the underpinning plot supplants the rather flat and monotonous mere series of events of the sagas (and other rambling stories), and is again akin to the onset of concrete operations. Finally, capitalism is akin to formal operations while feudalism and absolute monarchies is more akin to concrete operations (and the neolithic to the preoperational). Trying to tie exactly why the qualitative relations of one series (art, literature, or political economy) *equates* to the qualitative series of another (i.e. intelligence) may well be something that Gablik did not achieve, but simply establishing a correlation (however loosely) is interesting enough.?One person, one scientist, need not be forgotten just because they did not complete the job. You've set me on something here - another "soapbox rant".?Definitely something I'll be thinking alot more about anyway. |