“There are far too many false concepts and unproven ideas here, but your first statement sums it up. …” fid
Hi there fid! Nice to see you in action again. First, you claim to see “too many false concepts”…with apparently only one clear specific. (“Equality…a strange notion, no? Equality means sameness.” – OM) Perhaps you would enjoy deconstructing a little more? Perhaps not. As to there being “far too many … unproven ideas here…”, personally, I find little attractive in regurgitating that which is generally accepted by many as ‘proven’. For me, only exploring those areas not already codified by some sort of logic, science, philosophy etc. do I find it possible to learn new stuff. Also, I think that is one of the charms about ME that attracts many to come here and explore. If we wanted to read dogma and memes of the moment alone, the web is rife with such groups and sites. Also, as much as I loathe doing this, when you proclaim that my presentation (meaning) of “equality” is incorrect, (“No, no it doesn't. An orange may be equal in weight to an apple, or to a starving man be equal in worth. They are not the same, especially when orange juice is desired.” – fid) I don’t mind you adding to what I have said…that is the way we can all learn, however, here comes the odious part: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/equality Please note that the first “related word” listed is “sameness”. The second synonym is “sameness”. “I suggest studying science for a while. You make many odd statements about what it says and does and how it's dogma, but I haven't seen an accurate statement from you yet on science.” – fid Well, again your opinion is welcome here fid. And, in lieu of being privy to your specific argument, I again am reduced to either ignoring your post or guessing as to what you mean and/or are implying…which no doubt attracts the ire of a psyche that abhors being told what it thinks. I make no claims about being an expert on science…don’t think I ever have. I do have opinions and observations that, yes, are worth about as much as one pays for them. Yet, in the specific post in question, the one you argue says that science is dogma, I only used the notion of dogma once: ”We know how science has changed its defined areas of and ways of what is to be understood. No blame…and other than in some physically pragmatic ways, not much use in understanding. Disjointed, unconnected areas of knowing are presented like a crazy quilt attempt at explaining what is real. Any appearance and dogmatically imposed view of this reality is quickly understood and realized as being just the limited thing it is. We all look for clarity with little to show for the quest. If anything, the tenets presented by scientific inquiry merely add to the din.” – OM Here I did used the phrase “dogmatically imposed view of …reality”, and, since dogma merely means “An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true.” And doctrine is a synonym, I stand by my statement and use of the language. Now, of course, I realize that for some, the term ‘dogma’ brings up all sorts of abhorrent notions and to them, as empathetically as possible, I merely say “get over it”. I even direct this to myself, having railed against dogmatic thinking a lot here and elsewhere over the decades. In the context of my presentation, as admittedly disjointed as it was, there is nothing at all ‘strange’ about my observations, except perhaps they are not part of the mainstream today. As to my saying odd things about what science does and doesn’t do…I hesitate to even venture a guess as to your meaning. Continuing: You quickly conflate my comment: “…Many are aware how science does precious little when it comes to unifying a psyche…” – OM ….with theology. “..Really? Explain a little. Religion separates you piece by piece to this or that god or satan under the influence of this or that elf riding such and such unicorn filled with some or other spirit or soul…” – fid This of course perplexes me and perhaps other readers who do not know you well and your proclivities. My guess, again in lieu of proof…using limited historical evidence, is that you attack that which appears to denigrate what I can only guess is the basis of your ontology…science. To me, such fanaticism is little different from that of the inquisition or of intifadas. It is fine to “shake off” that which your psyche doesn’t wish to entertain…however, the result cannot be ignored. In the particular, approaching ‘religion’ as being some sort of monolith with a specific result as you have defined it does little to clarify our psyches let alone approach truth. Simple rejection of aspects of our psyches does not clarify. In this case, one might approach religion in a monolithic way…saying that they all are founded upon some sort of insight from some human being at one time…the result of which is said understandings then began to pervade groups and societies… Such a view, to me, is more integrating when it comes to my main theme. And, while science has not found such a unified view yet, perhaps it is not the best vehicle for doing so either. Of course, you make different claims about it: “…Science is a method of looking at the world. Yes, it leads people to live their life as if the daily living is important... someday religion may also.” – fid The former, assigning a trait to the method, ignores all too much. The second part, lacking evidence, sounds almost like an advertisement for some religious sects!...(ie “living is important”) Now, in most instances we do not denigrate other people’s beliefs here; however, holding a mirror to the similarities of that which you reject and that you embrace may be instructive…hopefully informative to some degree. Continuing: You next use the hyperbolic, ironic (and inaccurate) statement of: “I'm sorry if you think science does nothing for you,…” – fid This is fine, since I too use hyperbole on occasion, normally for a purpose. I just wanted to clarify for those who don’t know better that it is a direct fallacy that I “think science does nothing for you”. The quoted context demonstrates this: “Science does little to nothing in addressing such core facets of our befuddled psyches.” – OM Now, what follows is intriguing to me and may merit a topic on its very own: “…but billions of people are alive because scientists did not bow down to religion. Millions have focus and are no longer subject to the whims of the priests of some asinine god that punishes rapists by forcing them to marry the victim.” – fid Areas of interest to me include an unpacking and hopefully expanded view of what is meant by “religion”. Also, the very notion of ‘focus’ is of importance. This is something that in fact there is almost no research to be found for in western science. And, it is of extreme importance. This is an area that other systems of understanding can help with quite a bit. I’ve mentioned the practice of shamatha here on more than one occasion and point to it as but one of an enormous area of wisdom and knowledge that humanity has had for millennia. Of course, the old saw promoted by those of atheistic bent, that religion is the opiate of the people: “… Millions have focus and are no longer subject to the whims of the priests…” – fid …while undeniable when it comes to all things, (many people do live in a trance like state), it is in fact found to be the antithesis of that proposed by most if not all religions. Here I do not include the appropriation of such views by those who do not share the original insights. Snake oil salesmen can be found in all aspects of society… not just religion. Most originators of new traditions said to not accept their insights on faith but to examine them and only when found to be true to then accept. Otherwise, reject. And, while I do understand it to be your style, the rather gratuitous use of: “…asinine god that punishes rapists by forcing them to marry the victim.” – fid …does little to support your view(s) let alone clarify the overall issue. It, if anything, is cherry picking at its finest. “Nothing happens after death other than returning to your base components.” – fid Yes, I understand this tenet of most who adhere to the beliefs of materialism. Here, we attempt to delve into issues a little more. “Eternity is a fools concept.” – fid On the one hand, there is some truth here fid. Since all that we know to some degree about is the present, some understandings of eternity can mislead. On the other hand, simply being in the present (no other place to ‘be’), does define a sort of eternity. But, this (time/no- time) might be better approached in its own topic. “And no, nothing is wrong with guessing…” – fid For those who embrace scientism, this would have to be a tenet. “… It's when those guesses are put forth as truth that humanity suffers. …” – fid Well, again, yes and no. Such can be the case when it comes to politics, the use of many of the fruits of science, the more common view of the uneducated who embrace scientism without understanding its methodology and the given ‘truth for the moment’ results as being eternal truths etc. When examined a little more deeply, one would find that it is ignorance in general and not religion in particular that is the central character here. “…For tens of thousands of years predators have been putting forth guesses as truth and we have the house of cards known as religion to show the results.” - fid And here we come full circle back to the basis of epistemology. One person’s “guess” is another person’s fact/truth. For me, looking deeper than simple sound bite ‘truths’ such as “..the house of cards known as religion”, is much more informative than drinking the cool- aid of such truth by fiat approaches. And, we haven’t even mentioned metacognition in this thread yet! -- 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.
