"...your rants(!?) are a functional part of the universe upon which, for the time being (your life-span, that is), the universe occassionally requires. ;-)" - Pat
*** chuckles *** On Oct 1, 9:34 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > 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...quoted > > > > text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
