--- In [email protected], Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 
> On Jun 10, 2006, at 12:27 AM, new_morning_blank_slate wrote:
> 
> > "Magical thinking,", myth, art, poetry, drama, literature, dreams, are
> > great things -- in the vast realms that science does not provide a
> > more effective, predicable, researched and validated set of models,
> > explanations and remedies / technologies.
> >
> > We have discussed this a bit before in the realm of logic. Logic has
> > its realm. As does poetry. And I don't want a poet fixing the jet
> > engine in the plane I am going to fly in, but I would rather hear the
> > poet, rather have Neruda, not the mechanic, waxing on about love.
> 
> 
> One thing that Sanskrit literature and philosophy teaches us is that  
> each drishti or way-of-seeing is unique, and therefore each way-of- 
> seeing has it's own unique, internal logic. These are relative to one  
> another, but different. This is part of conventionality or the  
> relative. Waking state's linear logic may appear different to dream  
> state's logic, and waking state's way-of-seeing may see dreaming  
> state's logic as "magical thinking". It would also see the way-of- 
> seeing of Unity Consciousness the same way (as magical thinking). All  
> these things really tell you is looking *across* different ways-of- 
> seeing only shows that different ways-of-seeing are relative to one  
> another.
> 
> Different beings, in different dimensions of existence will also  
> experience the same phenomenon differently. A traditional example  
> given would be of a river which a human would see as something to  
> drink, fish would see as their home and gods would see as nectar  
> (etc., etc.).
>

Skip Alexander likened it to Piaget's Congitive Stages. What seems logical in a 
more 
advanced stage seems completely magical and/or illogical in a prior stage and 
no amount 
of intellectual analysis and explanation by the more advanced-stage person will 
adequaely 
explain/convince the prior-stage person of the validity of the advanced stage 
reasoning --
the brain structures simply do not exist to allow this to happen.

You simply CANNOT explain volume conservation to a kid who is too young to 
understand. Even if you demonstrate the principle in front of a kid using two 
different 
sized glasses, the kid will say something like "it's a trick!" --I did.







------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Get to your groups with one click. Know instantly when new email arrives
http://us.click.yahoo.com/.7bhrC/MGxNAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 


Reply via email to