Hello. On Philosophy & Science, Marketing / Image of WSM

[Philippe]

“Please post here first and say hello” is of course what I rushed not to do with my first post. So let me try again here: Hello!

I found this site by accident a couple of months ago and reading articles and ideas found the mix of physics and philosophy very attractive.
In a world where specialization means that we are obliged to focus more and more to remain relevant and in so doing often lose track of the broader picture, bringing back philosophy into the realm of pure science (physics) is I think an original approach and one which may bring interesting discussions, or so I hope.
At the end of 19th Century famous scientists announced that physics was coming to a close as most phenomenons were thought to be understood and explained. That was of course just before the advent of Relativity. More than a hundred years and huge steps forward later there is still this tendency to believe that the foundations of our science are solid and that new discoveries will only add to our current knowledge. I do not share this belief. Huge holes remain in our understanding filled with ad-hock explanations looking suspiciously like witch-doctor science (inflation for example) but which are nevertheless accepted due to the lack of better alternatives. Some of these holes may actually represent deep cracks in the edifice of science and endanger a lot of what is currently considered standard knowledge.
It is the trill of peeping at what may hide behind these cracks that I am looking for on this site and possibly, why not, having some fun in the process.
OK, not exactly a CV, but “hello” nevertheless.

[karene]

Dear Philippe,

Thank you for joining our (infant) forum. You are very welcome!

I have read some of your correspondence with Geoff (I am his partner). You seem like a very interesting person and I greatly appreciate your help / direction with regard to his writing style (to engage and confirm, rather than aggravate). Thank you!

You wrote;

[Philippe]

Dear Karene,

Thanks a lot for your welcome.

As I mentioned before, I do like Geoff's / your ideas but I think you need to adapt the style to make it more attractive to more people. In this respect, I think that the site needs to be selective but not exclusive. Provided people bring something positive to the discussion, they should be welcomed. It should not become a narrow minded place were only one idea is accepted, otherwise it will quickly become a kind of "sect" from which most "intelligent" people just run away. The Internet is full of that, so it is a risk you must always keep in mind.

As for the approach, it is original today but of course it isn't if you look at history when science was called "Natural Philosophy". Still I agree that this is a point of view sorely missing from our world. The current "religion" of business is that a company's only goal is to make profits and that morality is useless. So there is nothing wrong feeding people with "$#1T", polluting and destroying the environment, ruining lives by promoting the wrong lifestyle: "Hell, that's what they want!" I disagree. This is wrong. (Isn't it funning to hear that coming from someone working in marketing? But at least I cannot be accused of not knowing what I am talking about!)

It must be changed but how? For what values? With what message? I do not know but this is what we should try to discuss and if possible answer. I am certain that if the message is well presented, you will find that many people do share this goal and will want to participate and contribute. This at least my wish as it will mean the success of your entreprise.

One good way to start may be to structure the discussion and maybe try to "move" it in "prefered" directions to insure that some progress is made. (Probably the job of Goeff) And maybe later to have some place where "interesting" contributions are recorded with more visibility to make sure that the more interesting stuff stands out. Do you agree? Too Cartesian? Well, it's just an idea.

Best regards,
Philippe

[Chris Wright]

This all reminds me terribly of a big debate on the style of the spaceandmotion site that me and Geoff and others had a while ago. For my part, I agree with you, Phillippe, that there is a sect-like impression to the site; but, knowing Geoff and Karene a little better now, I see that it is not intentional at all. I think, with all due respect (which is much), WSM is applied too widely to all sorts of topics that aren't really relevant (on the argument that the nature of reality is relevant to everything), which leads to repitition that gives a false impression of their attitudes, since they are actually very open to debate and change.
I agree, also, that the reuinifaction of philosophy and science is extrememly important - I have met so many fascinating scientific minds whose intellect, I feel, is wasted because they do not allow themselves to contextualize their scientific understanding within contemplation of human existence and behaviour. And because science has so much to contribute to philosophical, political and social debates, but it is too locked up in its ivory tower to do so.
Chris

[Philippe]

Indeed. In fact, I am not even trying to be critical, just stating "things" as they are. I already had this discussion with Geoff off-line so I know that he agrees.

The fact is that you must start with what you have. The world being as it is and most people sharing "predominant" values, by definition. You cannot say, "This is the truth, believe me or leave me alone." because the result will be just that. 99.9% of people will leave you alone in your corner of the Internet and the rest, well, a few wandering butterflies attracted by the light. We probably can do better.

To do that, there is two aspects: The message and the way it is conveyed. The message is I think very interesting and definitively worth a closer look and I think many people will agree... once they have a closer look. Now, of course, the Internet is not a world of "close looks"; it is actually exactly the opposite, a world where you browse and jump to the next "interesting" subject. This is something you can't ignore.

The site is I think interesting and well constructed which shows by the number of people looking at it. Now the problem as I see it is: "How to make sure that all these people suddenly behave in this highly un-internet-like way and do have a closer look?" Here you need to think not only about your message but also about the way you need to present it.

I think this is an important subect which eventually will be key to the success of the idea. We should therefore spend some time discussing it and trying to work out practical conclusions which can/will constitute a framework for the further building of the site and promotion of the idea. How does it sound?

(Don't worry, I am not out to sell you something, even that the concepts of marketing are essential... but they are, believe me ;-)

Philippe

[haselhurst]

Hi Philippe, Chris, WSM.

Firstly a big welcome to Philippe. Your comments have been great, a wonderful addition to our new little forum. I also have several of your letters from past month that I will add to forum soon.

I hope that you don't mind, but i have re-named this post to more precisely cover its subject matter, and moved it from the 'Hello' page to this section on the marketing of WSM (it still shows in other section as link to here).

Some comments below;

[Chris Wright]

Hi Geoff, Phillipe.
Perhaps I should let you finish your post before interrupting, but I just wanted to ask how you see the world's situation playing out if you were to acheive your aim and spread knowledge of WSM to the world. What is your political stance? How would you organize the human race? Clearly, the structure we have now makes disastrous decisions - like burning oil; but this is because governments are driven by economic motives, and have to be in order to keep in with public opinion. How would knowledge of WSM change all this? I think immorality is quite a different problem from simple idiocy and lack of forward-planning. Sure, if everyone followed 'do unto others' morality on the basis of WSM, you might not have the US invading countries for economic reasons, but they would still burn oil.
I think you need to set up a tangible purpose for the world. You're right, a lot is going wrong, but you're not the only one to notice this. The question is, what can be done by those who see it? Does WSM provide an answer to this?
Chris

[haselhurst]

Hi Chris,
I think if humans realised that they are actually made of Space (waves in Space to be precise) then they would not burn oil because they would realise that by changing the gas structure of atmosphere they are changing how they are connected to rest of universe (with possibly lethal effects both to us and a lot of other life on earth).

And while it is certainly true that many people on planet realise that current human societies are unsustainable, few people have enough knowledge to be able to improve things in a practical way.
Basically, I think it is very hard to improve Humanity's lot without true foundations to build a better system from, i.e. foundations of philosophy, love of wisdom from truth and reality.

How exactly would society be different? Hard to know, and certainly not worth me writing too much here. This requires a lot of thought, but hopefully over next 20 years I hope to work with others interested in writing a new constitution and Utopian work on how Humanity could live on earth with greater harmony, both with one another and Nature as a whole.
But knowledge changes the world, whether we like it or not.
Hopefully we can discuss this over time.

Anyway, just a short reply, and also to make point that I finished my above post to Philippe.
Geoff