Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Cognitve Biases and Logical Fallacies

[Vaj]

On Jun 10, 2006, at 3:47 PM, sparaig wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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. Yes, precisely my point--although I see nowadays thinkers like Wilbur are in agreement to some positive things about Piaget while at the same time pointing out his limitations. __._,_.___ To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' SPONSORED LINKS Religion and spirituality Maharishi mahesh yogi YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS  Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web.    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. __,_._,___