I strongly agree that the second scientific revolution demands a new philosophical framework. To the thinkers you mention, I would add two more Americans who provide precisely the grounding you call for: Peirce and Dewey. Peirce gives us objective "chance" (tychism) to underwrite quantum indeterminacy, and continuity (synechism) to make sense of fields and curved spacetime. Laws become evolving habits of the universe, not eternal decrees. Likewise, Dewey offers a transactional epistemology that matches Bohr perfectly: the knower and known are co-constituted in inquiry. The experimental setup determines what nature yields—physics is what we can say about nature, not a glimpse of the thing-in-itself.
Together, they replace the clockwork cosmos with a relational, participatory, and evolutionary universe—exactly the imagination required to live with complementarity, chance, and creativity.
Brilliant synthesis. The gap you've identified between predictive power and comprehension begs for a "new" (Goethe et al notwithstanding) phenomenological science that takes evolved human perception seriously, not as a pre-given limitation but for its legitimate access to nature's deeper patterns (as a manifestation of them). When enough of us actually experience the participatory realism you describe as continuous with our own identity as Principal Investigators, the institutional infrastructure will have to follow. Science has always been remade from the ground up by those who see differently. (I like how Darwin is studying the sedge while the others look upward)
Also, not knowing the sources that Don refers to, I would have to say that Bob and Alan should really know better than to compare Asian and European histories in this way. In fact, I know they know better, so perhaps this is just a gloss for them to make a point about the importance of Asian traditions as they have made their way west. It’s also a bit far afield from the arc of Matt’s very comprehensive and lucid review of Western philosophical and scientific movements.
Good read, agree whole heartily. I think Ernest Becker offers a good mindset for the future boys. He's at that sweet spot to bask in the enlightenment of Frued and company without being blinded by it. 👍
Hmmm, I thought you were referring to another scientific revolution - Robert Thurman and B Alan Wallace refer to the integration of Asian and European scientific traditions is a second "Copernican" revolution. Perhaps if we had listened to Max Planck's understanding of mind as fundamental the revolution would have begun earlier. In any case, I wonder if the revolution will be televised!
(Revolution #9, that is - sorry, a bunch of Boomer references here)
Wouldn’t it be a third? Kant already claimed the second Copernican revolution for his critical philosophy. But yeah I would prefer something in between materialism and idealism. Both feel too extreme. So I guess I’d throw in with Madhyamaka over Yogacara.
I’m not sure exactly what you mean by your final point in this context: ”So I guess I’d throw in with Madhyamaka over Yogacara”. The centuries-long interactions among their varying schools, both scholastic and practical, and the obvious complementarity of Madhyamaka and Yogacara can hardly be called a revolution from one to the other. Historically, Yogacara in India outlived Madhyamaka; but they are both thoroughly integrated into later Tibetan and Chinese schools, with, of course, widely varying interpretations and views, also taking centuries to develop.
Got it. Thanks. I always appreciate when your dialogues with Timothy Jackson turn to a non-foundationalist stance, and especially intrigued by Timothy’s occasional references to Madhyamaka.
I strongly agree that the second scientific revolution demands a new philosophical framework. To the thinkers you mention, I would add two more Americans who provide precisely the grounding you call for: Peirce and Dewey. Peirce gives us objective "chance" (tychism) to underwrite quantum indeterminacy, and continuity (synechism) to make sense of fields and curved spacetime. Laws become evolving habits of the universe, not eternal decrees. Likewise, Dewey offers a transactional epistemology that matches Bohr perfectly: the knower and known are co-constituted in inquiry. The experimental setup determines what nature yields—physics is what we can say about nature, not a glimpse of the thing-in-itself.
Together, they replace the clockwork cosmos with a relational, participatory, and evolutionary universe—exactly the imagination required to live with complementarity, chance, and creativity.
Very cool. Bravo. Reductionist science has run its’ course and, yes, it’s time for another ‘revolution’.
Brilliant synthesis. The gap you've identified between predictive power and comprehension begs for a "new" (Goethe et al notwithstanding) phenomenological science that takes evolved human perception seriously, not as a pre-given limitation but for its legitimate access to nature's deeper patterns (as a manifestation of them). When enough of us actually experience the participatory realism you describe as continuous with our own identity as Principal Investigators, the institutional infrastructure will have to follow. Science has always been remade from the ground up by those who see differently. (I like how Darwin is studying the sedge while the others look upward)
Also, not knowing the sources that Don refers to, I would have to say that Bob and Alan should really know better than to compare Asian and European histories in this way. In fact, I know they know better, so perhaps this is just a gloss for them to make a point about the importance of Asian traditions as they have made their way west. It’s also a bit far afield from the arc of Matt’s very comprehensive and lucid review of Western philosophical and scientific movements.
https://open.substack.com/pub/josephgyovai/p/centropy-research-team-month-one?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=6ilr5w
Matt and friends, please have a look at this.
Good read, agree whole heartily. I think Ernest Becker offers a good mindset for the future boys. He's at that sweet spot to bask in the enlightenment of Frued and company without being blinded by it. 👍
Hmmm, I thought you were referring to another scientific revolution - Robert Thurman and B Alan Wallace refer to the integration of Asian and European scientific traditions is a second "Copernican" revolution. Perhaps if we had listened to Max Planck's understanding of mind as fundamental the revolution would have begun earlier. In any case, I wonder if the revolution will be televised!
(Revolution #9, that is - sorry, a bunch of Boomer references here)
Wouldn’t it be a third? Kant already claimed the second Copernican revolution for his critical philosophy. But yeah I would prefer something in between materialism and idealism. Both feel too extreme. So I guess I’d throw in with Madhyamaka over Yogacara.
I’m not sure exactly what you mean by your final point in this context: ”So I guess I’d throw in with Madhyamaka over Yogacara”. The centuries-long interactions among their varying schools, both scholastic and practical, and the obvious complementarity of Madhyamaka and Yogacara can hardly be called a revolution from one to the other. Historically, Yogacara in India outlived Madhyamaka; but they are both thoroughly integrated into later Tibetan and Chinese schools, with, of course, widely varying interpretations and views, also taking centuries to develop.
Oh just making a dramatically oversimplified statement of preference for middle way over mind-only.
Got it. Thanks. I always appreciate when your dialogues with Timothy Jackson turn to a non-foundationalist stance, and especially intrigued by Timothy’s occasional references to Madhyamaka.