Georges, the Pope extrudes similar dogmatic nonsense believed by many.
Mystery from Mystae, mystics etc meaning as peerers into mystery, as hidden
from the senses, is
where and how it all started. There's more to reality than meets the eye. If so
why does
science peer into unknowns?
etymol> mystic (adj.) Look up mystic at Dictionary.com
1382, "spiritually allegorical, pertaining to mysteries of faith," from
O.Fr. mistique,
from L. mysticus, from Gk. mystikos "secret, mystic," from mystes "one who has
been initiated"
(see mystery (1)). Meaning "pertaining to occult practices or ancient
religions" first recorded
1615. The noun meaning "exponent of mystical theology" is from 1679, from the
adjective. The
place name in Connecticut is deformed from Algonquian missituk "great tidal
river," from missi
"large" + -tuk "tidal river." Mysticism coined 1736.
We most definitely lack a scientific worldview. I rather doubt whether one is
possible, but I'm
willing and happy to be shown wrong.
How many visitors do you actually get to your site< georges, tell me, eh?
Georges will have to
find himself, Nobody can do that for you.
adrian
Georges Metanomski wrote:
>
>
>
> --- On Thu, 9/4/08, archytas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> ...
> We lack a scientific world-view (Kuhn was miles off
>> the mark)
>> that accepts mystery (Penrose's Shadows of Mind does
>> but fails) and
>> the way in which much 'physical' and
>> 'spiritual' (at least non-
>> material) can influence rigourous explanation and
>> mathematics.
> ==============
> Whatever you mean by "(non-)material" you certainly have
> my RELATIVISTIC_PHENOMENOLOGY in
> http://findgeorges.com/
> which postulates
> -that science does not explain mysterious events, but
> only coordinates them,
> -that no matter how rigorously coordinated, the mystery
> of events stays untouched,
> -that this mystery is open to meditation, but not to
> reflexion,
> -that this mystery is right at hand, directly given,
> inseparable from our self, constituting its very fabric,
> -that it's not the mystery that's mysterious, but the
> inexplicable possibility of its abstract coordination,
> -that it's asinine to look for the mystery by idiotic
> contortions of the abstract, like in the Copenhagen
> Interpretation.
>
> It all boils down to my "credo" stemming from Newton's
> allegory:
>
> Newton compared a scientist to a child playing with shells
> on the ocean shore.
> -Shells represent concepts and theories.
> -Ocean represents the unknown Marvelous wherefrom the
> Shells had emerged and new ones will turn up.
>
> It is absurd to restrict, in keeping with pseudo-science,
> the Universe to a few Shells and to deny the Ocean.
>
> But it is equally absurd to infer, in keeping with
> religions and dogmatic pseudo-science,
> the details of the Marvelous, to shut It in a Shell and
> to dissect It as if It were an oyster.
>
> Georges.
> ==============
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Epistemology" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
