Hi Steve, well the retardlets keep me VERY practical, don't you think (-: I definitely do not think of your comments as coming from the peanut gallery! Usually I avoid abstract discussions but I found Curtis' writing enjoyable to read and then the reply just came. I'm glad you enjoyed too. Hope you got a good rest. Share
PS Thanks too for your comment about my little poem. Again, I was moved by what merudanda had shared. ________________________________ From: seventhray27 <steve.sun...@yahoo.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 11:41 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Alienation and Idleness in Paradise Share, I like the points you raise. I guess if you have more a philosophical bent, then it is interesting to go deep into philosophical issues. And I am very much enjoyng the back and forth on that. But it is also just as valuable to view things from a more practical viewpoint as well. I believe you to be a person whose intuiton has guided you to make good decisions which have brought you a good degree of fulfillment, but who also a person who does not run away from the painful slings and arrows that life throws one's way. Comments from the peanut gallery. Now I'm gonna go to bed. (-: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long <sharelong60@...> wrote: > > Ooo, I do enjoy following your different lines of thought here. But I'm > actually gonna start with something you wrote to Doc. > Curtis to Doc: Evaluating the reasons we adapt beliefs is not a science > issue. They > have to deal with it too, but it underlies all of human knowledge. > > > Share: I think it is a science issue: the sciences of psychology and > anthropology and sociology. And even if by science you meant the hard > sciences, then definitely the adaptation of beliefs can be scrutinized by > neurobiologists, etc. Wouldn't it be great to see fMRIs done on athiests, > fundamentalists, and moderately religious people? On Republicans and > Democrats? On those who believe in global warming and those who don't. On > Washington Redskins fans vs Dallas Cowboy fans? Just to throw in a little > humor (-: > > I think neurobiology, etc. are perhaps the most fruitful lines of inquiry > about human believing behavior because how else can the mind, which is the > instrument of believing, get around its inherent tendency to believe > especially when studying its own tendency to believe? How can any mind > transcend its own believing behavior? How can any mind avoid its own > prejudices about believing? I'd bet money that most scientists have beliefs > about beliefs! And beliefs about believing will be present even in the > formulation of research questions! It's a conundrum. But just maybe > neuroscience is a way around this. Except for that pesky principle having > to do with how an observer changes what is observed. Oy!  > > Anyway, back to your post to me: I tend to come from a psychology angle so > right away I noticed that you said you are "forced not only to live with, but > communicate with people from all over the world." But you seem ok with it > despite your use of the word * forced * so I won't press. > > Actually I cannot > imagine what your view might be of the evidence proof of my alleged > favorite healers. But I won't press either of these points either. > > The name Sam Harris sounds familiar. I think I've heard it here before. > > Here's what I will press because it's juicy for me: I think it's great for > you that you socialize with lots of different people. And I think it's > great for me that I don't. Why? Because I think there is room for both > ways of being in this universe which seems to be all about diversity. But > I'm guessing that, since you're doing it, and especially since you're > mentioning it, that you think it is the better course of action. I would > say yes, it is the better course of action. For you! > > So then you might reply that it's the better course of action for everyone. > I would ask why. And you might say: because it's better for optimal human > development. Ok, I agree with optimal human development. But I also > recognize that that too is a belief. A belief that it's always better to go > for optimal human development! See what I'm getting at? I wonder if an > aboriginal chief in New Zealand would be at all concerned about something > called optimal human development. > > I enjoy hearing about both the research you cite and the book you mention. > What they seem to be getting at is that we can be unconsciously reinforced in > our beliefs and we should, as you say, guard against that. Why? For the > sake of optimal human development? What about our NZ chief? > > Here's why, coming from the perspective of having questioned many > organizations, I think we should guard against unconscious adaptation of > beliefs: because it can lead to the harming of life. I bet we agree on > this. What we don't agree on is what is the best way to guard against the > adaptation of unconscious beliefs that might limit the full development of > life or worse, be harmful to life. > > > I actually think that many if not most arguments on FFL are about this.
