Ray, I think its more of a question of 19th Century certainty about reality versus 20th and 21st Century puzzlement about the nature of reality. Newtonian versus quantum physics, if you like. A recent article in Scientific American on mulitiple universes proposed that each of us is living, has lived, will live an infinite number of lives in this universe and others. There are no spacial or temporal boundaries, so it's all possible. Even the time and space we occupy is filled with an infinite number of possible variations of ourselves. It sounds nuts to me, but it does suggest that we've moved from a mechanistic understanding of nature and society in which all things could be explained if you but discovered the first principles to a far more speculative understanding in which the first question to raise is whether there are such a things as first principles.
Ed Weick ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ray Evans Harrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Selma Singer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "pete" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Harry Pollard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, May 30, 2003 10:42 AM Subject: Re: [Futurework] new book > So we may be getting down to the crux of the matter on all of this George > stuff. Harry believes in a "reality of scale." The rest of us do > not. Instead we believe in a constantly changing mutual agreement as to > what constitutes reality from the subjective realities that are the worlds > that we each deal from. 19th century versus 20th century thought. So it > has nothing to do with the efficacy of all of the stories as science but > instead as the political reality of whose story will end up on top. > Interesting. > > REH > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Selma Singer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "pete" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Harry > Pollard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, May 30, 2003 9:53 AM > Subject: Re: [Futurework] new book > > > > questions for the group: > > > > If the only language you know does not have a word for the color gray, do > > you think you will see the color gray? Will you see it as gray in the same > > way as someone whose language does have a word for that color and who has > > seen that color labeled as such? Or will it look different to a person who > > doesn't have a word for it than it does to a person who has a word for it > > and has seen the color with that label? Will it look more green or blue to > > someone whose language has a word for green or blue but not gray? > > > > Selma > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Harry Pollard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "pete" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 9:35 PM > > Subject: RE: [Futurework] new book > > > > > > > Pete, > > > > > > The only reality I can confirm is objective. > > > > > > No-one can confirm subjective reality. > > > > > > But, I enjoyed your post. > > > > > > Harry > > > ---------------------------------------------- > > > > > > pete wrote: > > > > > > > > > >On Wed, 28 May 2003, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > > > > >when uncertainty becomes unbearable, faith provides solace. > > > > > > > > > Ed Weick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] [wrote:] > > > > > > > > >>Selma, I think you've put the matter very well. It reminds me of > > Thomas > > > > >>Merton's concept that, to understand God, we must depend on both > > reason > > > > >>and faith. In understanding who and what we are, we must let > > > > >>rational thought take us as far as we can possibly go with it. With > > > > >>each passing day or year, or with each scientific breakthrough, we > > will > > > > >>know a little more, but we will then increasingly recognize that > what > > we > > > > >>cannot know is much larger, perhaps infinitely larger since there > may > > be > > > > >>no boundaries, than what we can know. That is where reason ends and > > > > >>faith must take over. > > > > > > > > >>Selma <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Singer [wrote:] > > > > > > > > >>>Hi Natalia, > > > > >>> > > > > >>>I am familiar with The Course in Miracles; I have the book and its > > > > >>>companion and did a little work with it some years ago; as you say, > > > > >>>there are many paths to the same end. > > > > >>> > > > > >>>I am not comfortable however, with the idea that there is no > > objective > > > > >>>reality, although I doubt that my idea of objective reality is > > exactly > > > > >>>like that of those who believe that's all there is. > > > > > > > >I regard the subjective reality of Berkeley as possessing equal > validity > > > >as the objective reality of western science, and I think the true > > > >nature of reality embraces them both in a synthesis beyond the > > > >apparent paradox our limited understanding perceives, analogous to > > > >the synthesis of wave and particle, or other such complements > > > >which abound in physics. The world of subject and object is a > > > >result of a symmetry breaking event analogous to that which brought > > > >the multiplicity of fundamental forces into being. > > > > > > > >Furthermore, I applaud uncertainty, and hold that the position of > > > >agnosticism is the first step in understanding. You can't learn til > > > >you assume the position that you don't know. I see no value in > > > >abandoning that position in favour of faith. Rather, I promote > > > >the concept of active introspection, to replace agnosis with > > > >gnosis by direct experience. > > > > > > > >As far as the "mind", there are problems with the precision of > > > >terms, and much is lost in translation from the philosophies of > > > >other cultures. The concept of "no mind" in Buddhism is not > > > >an endorsement of an objective reality of a western nature, > > > >rather a rejection of the arcane profusion of mental "worlds" > > > >in some other eastern philosophies. However, from the simple > > > >western perspective, one can say, to illuminate the nature of > > > >mind, that either you have one, or there is no "you", rather > > > >"you" are one of the filler bodies, extras added to the world to > > > >bulk out the crowd scenes, golems which have no experiences > > > >and no subjective existence, ie no one home. This is a useful > > > >distinction to introspect on, to explore the nature of the bare > > > >essence of being, which is where one can apply one's attention to > > > >pry open the secrets of the true nature of reality. > > > > > > > > -Pete V > > > > > > **************************************************** > > > Harry Pollard > > > Henry George School of Social Science of Los Angeles > > > Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 > > > Tel: (818) 352-4141 -- Fax: (818) 353-2242 > > > http://home.attbi.com/~haledward > > > **************************************************** > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- > > ---- > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > > > Version: 6.0.484 / Virus Database: 282 - Release Date: 5/27/2003 > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Futurework mailing list > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
