Wednesday in Cambridge began with a focus on epistemology in the capable hands of Leif Östman. Most gratifyingly, he began in the 1600s with the scientific revolution when nature as object and humans as subject first emerged and we conceptualised the mind.
There was much to think about: Locke's direct imprinting of the senses onto the mind; Descartes' rationalistic excellence of thought and reflexive clarity; Wittgenstein's language correspondence theory with words representing the world; Rorty's mirror of nature; James' practical epistemology which sees truth as a temporary resting place from which all kinds exploration might begin, and where truth happens to an idea as it is made so by events. There is much to like about this Jamesean pragmatism.
In continued with Jamie McPhie and David Clarke who talked about a philosophy of becoming using the work of Delouse and Gautarri. This was, it appears, a tour of the philosophies of immanence with prismatic ecology thrown in – well, that's what I wrote down. It was, we were informed, an alternative take on the material turn. We walked around the splendid Homerton college grounds accompanied by an explication of 8 natures (but there are more, it seems).
As one who thinks about nature, and our interrelationships wth it, I ought, perhaps, to have found this experience more engaging than it proved. But, given that David and Jamie talked all the time during the walk, and never bother to wonder where their audience was in all this, it might not have been wholly my fault. I did, however, eat a very satisfying Victoria plum.
The day ended with a talk by Tony Juniper, now President of the Wildlife Trusts. We had been discussing during the day about who our research was for, and whether anyone was listening, and so I asked Juniper whether there was a piece of educational research that he could think of that had had an impact on the work of the organisations (Friends of the Earth etc) with which he'd worked in a long career.
He spoke at length in his response, but it added up to "No".
Respond