I'm more saying the list of needs itself needs to be derived from the
source, not derived as a catalog of the imagined effects- there is no
model of culture we can supply to derive this list from- it is a nice
list as far as lists go, but, to stay with your analogy- there is no way
to determine the breakfast of the architect from the shape of the
doorway.... whereas, yes, there really is a way to study any form of
architecture, even a specific school, by analyzing the building
materials. In fact, the Sydney Opera House can not be analyzed
satisfactorily in any other fashion- the building materials are _unique_
to that design, and the structure itself had to be modified in several
ways both in design and in construction to accomodate the technology of
the period. There are quite a few bridges which satisfy this quantal
approach as well.
Wilson's, and I echo, main point is that this blindness most 'humanities'
sciences have to this approach has led practically all of their branches
down a road going in the wrong direction, and that it's bloody well time
to move the other way- the evidence is starting to be overwhelming that a
reductionist approach will, at the very least, supply these sciences with
the proper questions- which they are presently lacking, at core.
*****************
Wade T. Smith
morbius@channel1.com | "There ain't nothin' you
wade_smith@harvard.edu | shouldn't do to a god."
******* http://www.channel1.com/users/morbius/ *******