The mistakes in argument are about too much knowing and needing to find this without destroying everything we can argue with. The 'and' bit still has mistakes. At an abstracted level, we can argue for a return to Galilean relativity through notions of measurement of one- way speeds of light, but we are not doing physics if we pretend this is any more than about concerns with convention. Most evidence and prediction goes the other way towards Einstein. And we may say stuff such as this just to look clever and attempt to glean credibility through this. Even this rider may be just another form of the same thing. At Chris' age now I was finding a lot in Freud, but also finding too much of academic argument could explain everything to no purpose at all. Heaps of Foucauldian bull might be poured around issues of pension deficits, with the users clearly evading the chronic unfairness of reward, brains obviously not concerned with real problem identification and solutions, just on the PhD or article Brownie points for career. Power remained the untouchable, as it is in Freud once his attitudes towards the common man become clear and control is once more pointed in the wrong direction. We are artists sent to the Chinese bureaucracy school to become the lawyers of unfairness. My own view is that there is plenty to believe in, and this is crushed by wanting the absolute. Many want the 'plain and simple' yet don't grok that this usually has some base in complexities that need to be unraveled for a better plain and simple. JB Priestley coined the term ADMASS years back and this has a massively disproportionate influence on what we have to think with. Given the rot this contains and what we soak up of it our argument is almost bound to be paranoid.
On 30 Jan, 19:19, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > Lack of mutual respect. Yes. When I look back I see what I see and you > see what you see. I understand that you, like many Americans, have had > a different exposure to religious life than I had, for example. That's > where our mutuality ends, my friend. The blue eye may be my witness. > How about not forgetting about a common ground for communication in > the future? The will-be future as well as the going-to-be future. > > On 30 Jan., 18:30, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Well, discovering said land is the purpose behind this discourse, isn't it? > > I've definitely noticed over the years that the Faustian dialogue has become > > far more refined; careful, thought out, eloquent, and built on rational > > precepts. The one thing that remains which I find dissatisfying in our > > exchanges is the perception of a lack of mutual respect. You've chided me as > > authoritatively as any father, yet there remains a sense of compatriotism > > even in the face of drastically adverse viewpoints which encourages me to > > continue to expand my thinking, and to accept that there are both knowledge > > and wisdom which only come with life experience that I have not attained > > yet. > > > C'est la vie. Although I do find the epistemological process wearying at > > times, I don't know of any other way to effectively examine the processes of > > perception, and by extension, the world, and my place in it. > > > On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 12:13 PM, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Orn is learning to be a master and is highly sensitive to many ruses > > > in argument. Sooner or later he will come full circle (no doubt > > > again) and catch himself in the superior guise he seeks to deflate. > > > The journey serves to remind us all of the same faults and may lead to > > > something better. Science proceeds in the same manner, and is subject > > > to the same mis-use. Even Orn is merely human and thus delightfully > > > fault-ridden. I have passed the secret gate myself, several times, > > > and still trip over the boot-scraper of the eternal return, sliding on > > > Blair-vomit to the bottom of the pit. The material confuses all as > > > much as it can form an evidential base. It remains fantastic that > > > staring at pollen grains in water and other similar occasions of > > > experience lead us to clocks going slower at high speed, and via dark > > > energy to think we can reach the current edge of the universe in 30 > > > years within the relativity-ship whilst billions elapse from where we > > > started and can never return to as it was. We do not know, yet, that > > > we can survive such travel biologically. > > > The cross-purpose of much discussion here is that religion can be as > > > dangerous in some hands as the fusion-bomb could be in others. > > > History generally and the history of religion is outstandingly > > > perverted, yet something in both has truth. We never seem able to > > > proceed from a point in which we accept we want free of the > > > perversion, perhaps even that this is possible with great care. Some > > > many seem entirely swamped by perverse history and arrogant ignorance > > > and this drags us down as surely as listening to Blair as though he > > > can speak the truth. I see no reason not to listen to good spiritual > > > argument or good scientific argument, but where do we find either? > > > For that matter the accounts of actual experience always appeal more > > > than political hogwash. 'Master', of course, does not have to mean > > > 'controlling bastard' or whatever (to which we all form prey at > > > times). I think I have just been guilty in trying to 'shame' my > > > 'bored' grandson into looking at maps of the world. > > > Bill just does too much for me to worry about him as a manipulator. I > > > shall try to contact him from my next lurid (oops! curse that irony) > > > dream. Accepting authority presumably means accepting it in a form > > > that allows one to drop it when given authority to inflict pain, > > > something not so totalising one becomes a Nazi. One very noticeable > > > thing about the terrorist survivor of Mumbai was how 'innocent' he was > > > and how vile his controller. Religion preys on the innocent and we > > > could say much the same for global warming arguments. Where is our > > > land beyond this? > > > > On 30 Jan, 15:19, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 2:59 AM, ornamentalmind < > > > [email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > “…Religion, on the other hand, does claim completeness, and resists > > > > > (by default) changes to the ideology.” – chris > > > > > > “I know of precious few religions that make such a claim. Almost no > > > > > one claims to know what god actually is.” – orn > > > > > > “Christianity Judaism Islam Hindu Shinto Say again?” – chris > > > > > > OK, since you are not making a claim with the above question, I’ll > > > > > assume that you meant to imply that those religions “claim > > > > > completeness, and resists (by default) changes to the ideology.” If > > > > > you didn’t mean to imply this, then one can ignore the rest of my post > > > > > and you can clarify what, if anything, you were saying. > > > > > Yes, that is definitely what I'm stating. > > > > > > To save time, I’ll go into the topic in detail so that most of my > > > > > assumptions will not have to be ferreted out. > > > > > I’ll also repost a little more of your original post for the context: > > > > > “A notable difference between scientific thought and religious thought > > > > > is that scientific thought does not in any way claim to be complete; > > > > > it is ever evolving and growing as the volume of total observations > > > > > grows. Religion, on the other hand, does claim completeness, and > > > > > resists (by default) changes to the ideology.” - chris > > > > > > As I’ve pointed out numerous times over the years, there is no > > > > > religion (in the context of our current discussion) that is separate > > > > > from the notions and thoughts of people. The same is true for science. > > > > > You even used the terms ‘scientific thought’ and ‘religious thought’ > > > > > above. So, with that as a given, we can continue. > > > > > > As a quick aside, I find it strange to take the role of an apologist > > > > > for religion(s)…not adhering to a specific theology nor embracing > > > > > faith nor revelation as stated earlier…and clearly not even being near > > > > > the ‘creationist’ that you so rudely attempted to impose upon me. > > > > > Continuing… > > > > > Now, now, Orn. I made a clear analogy to creationists by demonstrating > > > the > > > > arbitrary tossing out of evidence to suit a belief set. Not to sound > > > > five > > > > years old, but you started it. ;) You denied the physical existence of > > > > emotions, because you were unable to 'touch' them. This is simply > > > ignoring > > > > all that we do about emotions, and how well understood they are, by > > > imposing > > > > a meaningless test for them (talk about moving the goalposts!), and > > > saying > > > > they are somehow mysterious if they don't pass your arbitrary test. > > > That's > > > > simply not true. We know as much about emotions as we know about > > > > gravity, > > > > perhaps more, and we learned that by measuring their changes and > > > > effects. > > > > Simply stated, emotions are the neurochemical response framework of > > > internal > > > > or external social stimuli. Emotion as an indicator of some mysterious > > > force > > > > simply doesn't hold up anymore, because we do implicitly understand > > > > their > > > > function and origin, and how to manipulate them. Continuing... > > > > > > As far as I know, there is no monolithic point of view of any of the > > > > > theologies you listed Chris. I’m sure you have some thoughts about > > > > > each as do I. Also, millions of other people have their own subjective > > > > > views of each ‘religion’ (or, more accurately, ‘religious thought’) > > > > > too…each having their own spin. Yes, I know that there are specific > > > > > tenets involved. Some would embrace the ten commandments. Others would > > > > > embrace sheria law. The list could continue for a long time, no? And, > > > > > in almost every if not actually every case, there would be those who > > > > > disagree with the tenets listed. This is what I mean by no monolithic > > > > > view or thought about any religion. Yes, we do each have some vague > > > > > set of beliefs about what these religions consist of…yet when > > > > > examined, there is no full agreement at all about any of them. > > > > > Yes, absolutely. Individual people do have differences in > > > > interpretation, > > > > but that doesn't change the initial precept. Remember, I said 'claims to > > > > have'. All religions claim to have. I think I made a mistake in my > > > wording > > > > which allowed for the wiggle here, that being the interchangeable use of > > > > religion (which clearly indicates the larger group concept), and > > > religious > > > > thought (which can rightly be interpreted to mean the thoughts of the > > > > individual, despite that not being my intention). In re: "You can do > > > > better", you're right. After all the years I've spent here, I should > > > > know > > > > better than to hack out responses in between job functions, as semantic > > > > failings will be quickly illuminated. Thank you for that. > > > > > > Your original claim had to do with a comparison between scientific > > > > > thought and religious thought… making the proposition that they > > > > > differed in that the former makes no claims as to being complete while > > > > > the latter does. > > > > > Which, as Vam illustrated, it does. > > > > > > It is true that many scientists will change their beliefs if and when > > > > > other scientists present a better model and/or experiment methodology > > > > > showing a preferable reality. So, in this way scientific thought can > > > > > change over time. There may be examples to the contrary, but that > > > > > would be for a different topic. > > > > > > It is also true that some religious > > ... > > read more » -- 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.
