"Rationalism ALONG THE EDGES." Thank uuuuuu.

Sorry I just love trolling new-age simpletons haha. Not to bash alchemical or as
trological systems of explanation, just remember that your model is potentially,
and at the very most, EMPIRICALLY ADEQUATE, keeping within the subject of this
page and Terence's philosophy of science (I actually believe he draws a lot from
Bas van Fraassen, which also explains why he's situated so close to David Hume
and John Stuart Mill on this philosophy-map). Terence was, in other words (and a
s far as I can tell), an instrumentalist and a pragmatist. Recall the shaman as
a HANDS-ON, non-euclidean geometer. Also remember that Terence thought the most
a theoretical discourse can aspire to being is "true enough," (as Ludwig Wittgen
stein put it). Linguistic representation is exactly that: representation. That m
eans if you want to get metaphysical and play around with ontological discourse
(i.e. ISOMORPHIC representation and Truth with a capital T), then YOU SIMPLY IN
THE WRONG NECK O' THE WOODS, SON.
I hope that makes sense... I know I'm rambling, but I dont think I'm sorry. I ju
st feel like Terence is still so deeply misunderstood, even though he knew he wa
s and tried so hard to disassociate himself from that. Let's do the man some jus
tice and really try to understand him! Obviously there's a lot of background to
learn and my own understanding isn't doing you any good. I'm not asking to make
a Terence McKenna cult because the simple fact is that he "stands on the shoulde
rs of giants," as Isaac Newton would say. That means we must all acquaint oursel
ves with the movements of western culture and society. An eastern education is a
lso highly valuable and will also help make sense of Terence's meaning, but that
's more valuable for looking at Discordianism (i.e. Robert Anton Wilson and asso
ciated figures). Hope ya'll enjoyed my pontificating. Also, feel free to poke ho
les in my analysis where ever you can.
[EDIT: I also want to add a little bit about relativism, which Terence was so we
ary about getting around for the purposes of distinguishing "shit from shinola".
I think his pragmatic/instrumentalist leanings answer to this problem... You ju
st have to remember that all generalizations should be divorced from ontological
discourse... otherwise you're building a system too rigid and not malleable eno
ugh to get around pessimistic inductions of the history of science. In other wor
ds it won't survive in the event of a paradigm shift. So the system does have to
accommodate relativism to a certain extent... Hence the rationalism, but only A
LONG THE EDGES.]
[EDIT 2: If, on the other hand, you're interested in Truth (notice the capital T
) and ontological discourse, there are perspectives today that carry on the trad
itions spearheaded by Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Francis Bacon, and Immanuel Ka
nt. You might want to look at Anjan Chakravartty's "A Metaphysics for Scientific
Realism." My opinion (and Terence's too) is that this route is a risky, uphill
battle.. Your call.]
[Edit 3: I know my analysis is highly anachronistic and probably wayyy oversimpl
ified...also nothing is unbiased... but I'm trying to condense 2.5 years of univ
ersity studies and attempts at understanding Terence into a convenient, digestib
le format for yall.. I'm probably not doing that great of a job either. But hey,
I'm trying.]
[EDIT 4: I would also be honoured if someone could make me an admin for this pag
e. I love Terence so much <3. Jonathan Laliberte, maybe you can initiate me? XD
]
PHILOSOPHY MAP LINK:
http://www.coppelia.io/wp-content/ /2015/08/philprettyv4.png