Ornery Orn ranting pants Seams of gold split hairs Tibetan monks chant to trance A universe at rest in prayers. Pat full of all acceptance Sharpens marshal tools to gleaming Bluster. Neil polishes scientific beads With feather fluster The truel around for all to muster!
On 1 Oct, 17:48, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > On 1 Oct, 17:42, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > "...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 *** > > Well, it's true. And it's true even if the rant happens to be > against me. In those particular cases, it's incumbent upon me to > understand the Buddhist concept of 'acceptance'. ;-) > > > > > 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...- > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
