On 1 Oct, 16:35, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote:
> Neil, to be clear, in no way do I consider scientism as ‘the enemy’.
> That sort of thinking has its place even though it doesn’t answer any
> of the larger human questions. You are correct, there is so much more
> to know and learn. I even learned stuff from ‘ol Midgely through an
> article on Theosophy!
>
> Recently I have come to more of an inner truce when it comes to
> apparent dichotomies of wisdom/knowledge, data/gnosis, ‘facts’/direct
> apprehension. Similar to what I was told as a kid, that all should be
> allowed to express their thoughts, I now see the wisdom of simple
> presentations of all thoughts, no matter the source. People can
> discriminate much easier/better when not in a dialectical mood. Of
> course, I cannot promise to abide by the NMOR principle (No More Orn
> Rants)!!! :-)
>
I certainly hope you don't. your rants(!?) are a functional part
of the universe upon which, for the time being (your life-span, that
is), the universe occassionally requires. ;-)
> On Oct 1, 6:03 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Sign me up for the Scientism Orn - do we all get a magnetic resonance
> > machine? I note these opportunists have neglected the very wide body
> > of literature you have indicated over the last couple of years. I
> > remember reading a learned article that stated little attention had
> > been paid to 'management learning' - I was reading this whilst a
> > member of a centre for the study of 'management learning' formed some
> > 10 years before. It is, of course, common practice to state an area
> > is unresearched. There is generally more in a Gabbyesce one-liner
> > than this article. I have learned much more from you and others in
> > here than this kind of pretended science could ever offer. One should
> > not, old chap, merely offer up the worst the opposition can muster!
> > I rather liked the Alan Wallace stuff - what I felt I wanted was a
> > joint commentary on what this kind of reasoning does for us - though
> > preferably one that doesn't swamp my emails as the Witters one I
> > looked at recently after its introduction here. I was moved - partly
> > in the relief of 'listening' to another doing some kind of justice to
> > argument in principle accessible to us all. It was Gabby who pointed
> > me to an article by Mary Midgely available in a list I posted as
> > available free at Philosophy Now - this ends by saying the 'least
> > worst' position is 'listening' to a kind of inner committee rather
> > than one-dimensional Rationality (perhaps a strange way to come to a
> > 'first reading'!) - one can glean a little from almost anything,
> > including this article. A real scientific approach should not neglect
> > experience in a very general sense, even if its purpose is to expose
> > problems in that experience or expose it as just plain wrong. I
> > suspect there is a great deal of scientific evidence for a religious
> > position open to evidence - one does not have to fall for scientism in
> > adopting this, or fall for tradition, revelation, or deny 'messages'
> > we can experience in a religious sense - questioning remains (as
> > Wallace points out very well).
>
> > Apparently some way from anything we might discuss on this, is the
> > Vanessa George case in the UK. This woman, now known to be a very
> > serious child abuser, appeared happy and caring to all around her for
> > over ten years. Today she is being sentence for abuse so horrible the
> > news is shying away from telling us what it was. Parents with kids at
> > the nursery at which she worked now live not knowing whether their
> > children have been abused. We can be very wrong in our assessments of
> > people, science, religion and so on. This should not stop us trying
> > to find better positions and some way to incorporate all evidence in
> > what we can do in introspection and its translation in mutual
> > understanding. There is much worse than scientific pedantry to cope
> > with!
>
> > On 1 Oct, 07:22, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > ...for those interested in Scientism.
>
> > >http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.00...Hide
> > > quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
