ABSTRACT
Thus, for example, physics can tell with reasonable accuracy what will happen when sufficient amounts of uranium are crammed together into a small enough space, but as to the purposive ‘fall out’ of such a compaction, science itself has remained largely mute. Of course, this is not to say that particular scientists themselves do not render comments and opinions upon such activity, as individuals it is assuredly the case that some do. Rather, it is science itself which is held to be ‘neutral’ in respect of the issues of purpose and meaning. This propositional separation of ‘what will be’ from ‘what should be’ remains a widely perpetuated but eventually fatal fallacy (cf., Carter, 2005; Gould, 1999). For, as much as purpose predicates process, process promotes purpose. Purpose and process are thus inextricably linked together in a locked circularity. Like perception and action, their independent existence is virtually without meaning. How these respective parts of the life experience first came to be divorced is a matter of historical postulation. How they are to be reassembled and cogently integrated is the greatest human challenge of the twenty-first century (Fraser, 2007).
