Ahhh a fellow New Scientist reader huh!
On 6 Feb, 04:21, archytas <[email protected]> wrote:
> The physicists claim to be sensing new "stuff" in the noise of the
> gravity wave reception. Notions of a holographic universe are around
> again. There is more to consider without such technological "sense
> organs".
>
> On 6 Feb, 02:34, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Oh, yes dear Neil…I have always agreed with the appearance of
> > differing physical things. In fact, a deep metaphysical analysis will
> > result in clear differentiation here. We as human beings do know our
> > vital energy. We feel the heat of our metabolism. We feel our vitality
> > as urges to unite arise.
>
> > We also do know how we are similar in our daily discourses and
> > analyses. We treat appearances as things. Yes, physical things. We
> > tacitly agree upon this, did you call it an approximation?…not sure.
> > But we do have agreements when it comes to the earth and stuff we can
> > touch.
>
> > Now moving into more rarified areas, and those that our words only
> > point towards, we do feel love and have associated moralities.
> > Physical? Not in the more common meaning, yet another well known realm
> > of ours.
>
> > And, of course we think! This forum is a great example of that. We
> > agree that thinking exists. Is it physical? Clearly not in the exact
> > same way that a tree is physical, or a rock is. In fact, we can even
> > be aware without thoughts! I know, for some this may not be in their
> > arsenal of being. Yet, it is in the same realm.
>
> > Now, how do we know all of these realms and keep them straight and be
> > able to function? Without wishing to go into deep explanation, I will
> > posit a term…merely a word/concept, a spiritual realm. That which
> > unifies all.
>
> > All of the 5 above can be found to manifest within our physical body.
> > All of them can be found to manifest within our living/being. And,
> > just what else is there?…when one is discussing physicality? For this
> > reason, I have purposely left out the absolute.
>
> > On Feb 5, 5:12 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Understanding where science fits in – metaphysically,
> > > epistemologically, morally, aesthetically and otherwise – is our
> > > culture's characteristic philosophical problem; we’ve been working on
> > > it since Descartes. The hardest part is to reconcile a physicalistic
> > > ontology with the apparently ineliminable multiplicity of discourses
> > > that we require when we try to say how things are. Some hold we’re
> > > suffering from pluralism, nihilism, solipsism, relativism, idealism,
> > > deconstructionism and other symptoms of the "French disease". I plead
> > > not guilty. It seems to me that scientific Structural Realism is quite
> > > compatible with the view that events fall into revealing and reliable
> > > patterns not just at the level of micro structure but at many
> > > different orders of aggregation of matter. The heterogeneity of our
> > > discourse would then correspond to the heterogeneity of levels at
> > > which the world is organised, and both might well prove irreducible.
> > > We forget too easily that many of our techniques rely on
> > > approximation.
> > > Everything could be physical, but we hold there are many different
> > > kinds of physical things. Some are protons; some are constellations;
> > > some are trees or cats; and some are butchers, bakers or candlesticks.
> > > There are the proprietary generalisations we use to explain behaviour
> > > and each such generalisation has a proprietary vocabulary to express
> > > it. Nothing can happen except what the laws of physics permit; but
> > > much goes on that the laws of physics do not talk about. There may,
> > > as Orn asserts, be divine stuff and experience. I am crude enough to
> > > believe the world could do with some buckets of this and that better
> > > organisation of our material being could help in bringing about the
> > > conditions necessary. My friend might look at this the other way
> > > round, though I'm by no means sure he does. My contention is that
> > > science requires fellowship and a guard against the libidinal economy
> > > as surely as we need magnets to guard against out plasma touching
> > > anything outside the torus from which we hope to derive fusion power.-
> > > Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
""Minds Eye"" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
