http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=lznhU4PfNWc&watch_response

Since 1950, with Quine, it's well accepted by philosopher that language is constitutive of what we call "nature" but that this "nature" also constrain our language. Both are interconnected. Quine even considered that scientific entity are fondamentally no more different then Greek god. But since we all know that science is not giving an objective story of reality, because there`s no absolute picture of nothing. We have to choose a point a view ! We have to choose what we considered to be the best myth. As a pragmatist, I prefer science. I prefer the myth of science because it's the more efficient myth I know. By that I mean that it offer a better predictability of the future event base on some initials present conditions. But as a 21st century scientist I question the world not in a dualistic way, I'm past Descartes, I consciously know that I have bias. And my quest is to establish a scientific theory of these bias, ans we are as a community of believers in the myth of science acheving some progress. (see situated cogntion (Varela), ecological (Gibson) and developpemental (Hirchfield) psychology) In short, the point a wanna make is that Gregory Bateson saw back in the 70s what you are seeing now, that the alliance of our contemplative and technologycal epystemology is going to destroy our species. But that point CAN be adress and resolve by adding more science. Imagination and mysticism is not the answer because cognitive science and naturalism are starting to explain why we think the way we are thinking ! Science can see it's own bias and try to limit the consequence. We do not need to find another way to resolve the problem of technology, we need better science, science who understand that we are an embodied biological organism situated in a cultural environnement who understand that logic, rationality, language and explanation are product of a brain that have been naturally selected to produce certain type of representation because in a certain environnement it have help us to survive. Science that understand that nowaday those cognitive predisposition that have evolve no longer give us the better chance at surviving because our environnement have drasticly change.(See evolutionnary psychology) That science exist, it is emerging, the notion that our capacity to tell the story of our existence is constrain and limit by the interraction of our central nervous system and our environnement is nowaday a scientific problem that I believe will lead to solution. No need at all to fall into the mysticism litterature. I choose pragmaticaly that scientific litterature need more empiricaly based rationalisation.

The problem is not our knowledge it's how we act upon it.