S: Curtis, thanks for the great reply. I would enjoy continuing the discussion
-- tho there may be gaps in response some times as both life and brain freeze
intervene.
Some initial thoughts on your responses
C: The only thing I could add is that the creativity within scientific
frameworks seems different from many other types of creativity in that it
exists within the traditions of carefully tested boundaries that have been
supported by evidence. ... One has constraints that the new insight must also
account for what has come before.
S: I understand. And the direction of research, appears be further
focussed/constrained by the interest (and whims) of department/lab heads, profs
and researchers with with large grants, the probability of publication, the
current trendiness of current lines of research favored by target journals, the
likelihood the research and paper(s) will generate lots of cites, availability
of grad-student and post-docs with sufficient background in the target area of
research to do the actual grunt work, availability of suitable experimental
subjects, etc. On the other hand, I talked a lot this summer to a grad student
completing her research for her doctorate and she responded to a line of
questioning that, "sure, if you bring your own grant or other funding to the
table, you have a lot more freedom to define the direction of your research."
C: So the channel for something new added has a context that is lacking in
creative literature for example. Although some of the processes are parallel,
the conditions for manifesting them are radically different. ... This [
accounting for what has come before] is lacking in most revelations from God in
my experience. And the end claim is radically different in what the claim is
based on, but you will get into that more below.
S: While literature and the arts broadly defined have less constraints on the
range an scope of areas to explore compared to scientific research, from what I
observe and hear (and I am pretty far removed from the arts), artists and
writers still have internal concerns and external pressures regarding whether
they are pursuing work that is derivative vs a new original direction. And
beyond the self-produced smaller scale, upload-it-to-my-blog or youtube-artists
(which are great outlets), funding, marketability, reputation and career
direction appear to be constraints on direction of creative exploration.
C; And here I would add that there are many different appropriate
epistemological systems within the scope of human knowledge. I am not a slave
to science in that I love the humanities and arts and consider their approach
valid in another way as a means to "validate" knowledge.
S: I view the arts more as wonderful source to generate new hypothesis. That
is, for example, a good film may present issues that trigger insights, new
perspectives and questions. However, they generally don't provide a strong
basis to validate such. Rather, I may walk away with new hypotheses (such a
formal word and not one I generally use in daily life, but is a good
generalized term that applies across the wide territory of issues that we are
discussing) that I may then to take out for a test drive, apply in life, and
see if it has juice (or wings). Though even there, typically this is not a
strong level validation -- more "well this [view, framework, inspiration,
motivation] seems to be useful for now".
C: It is less rigorous but that is appropriate for the complexity of the
subject matter. But what they share with science is a commitment to at least a
discussion for what would be good reasons to support a POV. I just heard on NPR
today that a journalist should think of the toughest argument against whatever
they are proposing and show step by step how they get around each objection. It
sounded like such a good model and is almost the exact opposite of the touchy
sensibilities of most spiritual groups who frame all opposition as negativity.
S: Journalistic processes and standards for validating knowledge are, for me,
good reminders of the traps and pitfalls of "Fast Mind" (per Kahneman)
judgements. Thats one reason I like the Newsroom (HBO). Crap, I would have
internally OKed a conclusion about the Sarin Gas validity (Season 2), way
before ACN did. Yet even hard core journalism get it wrong a lot of times. And
ultimately journalism across all media is generally driven by pleasing
investors, advertisers, market niches quite beyond mine, etc.
Beyond journalism, the legal system has its criteria of evidence and due
process, etc. that can provide some insights applicable to validation of
personal level hypothesis. Many (if not most) careers involve making a clear,
defensible argument in one form or another. I have learned a lot observing
smart people "making a case" in a variety of situations and issues. And
sustained career feedback regarding construction of arguments, or dissecting
those of others (more generally, proposals, analysis, recommendations,
appraisal of threats and opportunities, decision analysis, etc) has been a
learning experience.
S: 2) Traditional Practices and Models and their Potential Partial Validation
(via demonstrated adaptive evolutionary advantage over tens of thousands of
experiments over 1000's of years)
C: I am somewhat dubious that we have documentation about the claims concerning
1000s of years. (Although as a TM teacher it dripped off my tongue every
lecture!) Mankind seems to have some accumulated wisdom within a history of
self serving pseudo knowledge shenanigans. I think most of this belongs in your
above sections of hypothesis rather than verification. The Age of Reason really
did transform our ability to sort things out with better reasons.
S: I do view (possible) insights from Traditional knowledge as hypotheses,
However ones that have gone through, at least in some cases, a rather rigorous
screen process -- and for me, may deserve to be a bit higher on the hypotheses
to be validated list..
I meandered through some related thoughts and points in post 407366.
For me, an intriguing factor is the possible survival adaptive / evolutionary
advantage that traditional practices may have given some groups over others.
Oversimplified, those groups that practiced things that worked and generally
survived over many generations. Those practicing nothing comparable, or of
lesser efficacy did not survive (or were absorbed by more successful groups)
Spurious correlations (the genesis of many superstitions) tend to diminish and
be weeded out over many generations.
S: 4) Processes of Personal Validation and Acquiring Trust of Insights from
Specialized Mentors
C: I am good at this in my artistic life and bad at it in general. I don't have
anyone who I could look to as a person who has life at its deeper levels better
figured out than I do. I don't mean that arrogantly because I don't know shit!
It is just that I haven't seen anyone whose presentation of knowing what I used
to study as spirituality as having the kind of credibility I would need.
S: I seek mentors that have a solid liberal arts (particularly philosophy)
and scientific background (particularly neuroscience) and have credible level
of traditional knowledge and subsequent significant refinement of mind/
consciousness/(and subtle physiology -- a point I understand you may choke a
bit on) , who live / radiate THAT. Not much success in that, but such may be
"in the works" and available down the road. In the meantime, taking portions o
targeted qualities from a variety of teachers and using triangulation as a type
of validation system is a work in progress.
S: 3) Personal Observation and Experience (sorting out spurious correlations,
cognitive biases, misinterpretation, to identify effective heuristics in ones
own life (and possibly applicable for others)
C: This is how we roll. All of us. Imperfect, but he we gotta do something! So
we follow our biases and muddle through. I feel pretty bad at this with my only
claim of enlightenment being that I know I suck at this and see a lot of people
that don't know that they suck at this.
S: Personally, I think real validation needs to come from inner SAT. Yet that
is a larger topic, and subject to large scale cognitive biases,
misinterpretation, cloudiness, and a host of other constraints. However, that
too is a work in progress.
C: The up side is that I have changed the questions I was asking about life so
radically that spiritual questions are not relevant to me anymore. I have so
many other questions that do have people who have the next step I need to grow
into, so I am optimistic again, but in a different direction.
S: My spiritual questions I think are far fewer, or at least more focussed
than 20-30 years ago (regardless if that is true, I guess I would hope so). And
demarcations of spiritual vs worldly seem less relevant. Now its more "life
questions". For example, art, in context of above discussions could be as
relevant as study of "old books by old men".
Poorly said, and subject to (probably appropriate) ridicule (I like
self-deprecating humor, so deprecating humor from others is not a big deal),
spirituality is embedded in life, and life is embedded in spirituality. For
example, the "new"er Cosmos series (there are better, but less probably less
familiar examples) was to me at times mind-blowingly spiritual -- as in
jaw-dropping, floor prostrating (metaphorically) wonder and awe. As can be
digging deeply (for me -- still pretty surface level) into recent brain
research. So I am not isolated to wondering about and exploring what may seem
to be utter esoterica (e.g., sanchita karma), but a number of areas (perhaps
too many) that in my (tenuous) mind appear connected and "breath life".
