I suppose a philosophy that includes ignorance is not known here either. Science and religion are very different types of human practices. Science is about understanding human and nonhuman nature without invoking God, and religion is about relating to God. One can explore what scientific and religious practices can have in common, when viewed from the perspective of the American philosopher William James (1842–1910). I am specifically interested here in the roles of emotion and the metaphysics of experience in characterizing both types of practices. How do emotion and the metaphysics of experience—and corresponding intimations of the sacred—relate to the irreducible uncertainty and *ignorance* that characterize both science and religion? And what does this imply for the relationship between uncertainty and God?
One cannot do this alone: On William James's view truth and the process of establishing it is social, . . . most basically because reality itself—including the knowers and the known, concepts and objects, and the true and the real—is social in the most fundamental and human senses. The sociality of pragmatism's understanding of truth takes a central position in James's radical empiricism. Yet this social world is largely one of ignorance so severe few read or can stand breach of their parochial mentality, even give time for others. What would ignorance be if you read this - http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/doi/10.1111/zygo.12138/ - ? What ignorance is involved in not reading? Or considering those who don't ignorant? Or only being able to read into others' exchanges what one might mean oneself in terms of one's own parochial, possibly patriarchal manners? .On Monday, March 16, 2015 at 2:54:28 AM UTC, archytas wrote: > > *Biocultural evolution* refers to (1) the emergence, within the physical > realm, of biological processes of evolution that themselves generate the > phenomenon of culture; and (2) to the distinctive, non-Darwinian, dynamic > processes by which culture proceeds, while at the same time existing in a > relationship of symbiosis with the physical-biological processes in which > it emerged and in which it continues to operate. > > If bearing the image of God means exercising creativity in ways that share > power and produce good, the development and use of technologies that > systematically exclude individuals or groups from access to them and their > benefits will surely entail the added cost of further marginalizing and > oppressing those unable to embody (or flourish alongside) novel versions of > humanity that become *de facto*normative. Additionally, the collateral > damage of “progress” in the forms of environmental degradation, the > negative ecological and socioeconomic effects of anthropogenic climate > change, and the irreversible loss of biodiversity are incompatible with the > conceptions of creator and created co-creation constructed above. These > affronts to human dignity and ecological integrity are creation through > violence. Therefore, these antitheses to wholesomeness cannot reside within > the semantic range or hermeneutical trajectory of the command to “be > fruitful and multiply; fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over” its > creatures. > > As created co-creators with an eye to the future, *Homo sapiens* have > come to realize that in part, the human condition means not having to > settle for its givenness. Theologian and biochemist Arthur Peacocke > observes that “we are capable of forms of happiness and misery quite > unknown to other creatures, thereby evidencing a ‘dis-ease’ with our > evolved state, a lack of fit which calls for explanation and, if possible, > cure” As products of *Homo sapiens’* ethically ambivalent biocultural > nature, whatever “cures” we create are true *pharmakoi*—potentially both > poison and remedy. We could direct our human future toward the latter. > > So what is ignorance when one can put up questions on deep green and no > Christians know their own analysis? Is ignorance something essential to > faith? What is it we do when we squabble rather than read, think and > share? Is it worth knowing anything in order to be received as a > smart-arse or holy? What causes human silencing? Once one knows how can > one speak without revealing others' ignorance and various reactions to keep > their own ignorance intact, silenced and politely, manneredly, violently > quieted? Speak up Gabby - you know, in that way you say as little as > possible, requiring others to define terms and do the work for you. How > about a theatre of the oppressed? You have enough actors to put one a > one-girl Gemini show. I like the honesty in your deceit. > > On Monday, March 16, 2015 at 1:53:06 AM UTC, archytas wrote: >> >> Perhaps the most spectacular development in recent history has been the >> truly amazing rise of the importance of science, and the effect it is >> having on every facet of human life. No less amazing, particularly to the >> scientist, is the equally spectacular lack of understanding of the >> scientific endeavor which the non-scientist not only exhibits but seems to >> revel in. >> >> A present-day educated man would be disdainfully scornful of anyone who >> knew nothing of the writings of Dante or Homer, the paintings of EI Greco >> or Renoir, or the music of Telemann or Verdi. Yet, this same man is heard >> to brag that he never could pass elementary physics and that high-school >> biology made him sick at his stomach. >> >> The intellectual of the future not only will know something of science >> but will be so attuned to its intellectual discipline that he can use its >> relevant teachings to make progress in his own field of learning. We are >> gathered together here not to look backward or even at the present but >> forward to the future to try to plot a course for theology in the modern >> idiom—to search for the relevancy of all aspects of the modern world to the >> highest aspirations and goals toward which men strive. >> >> Specifically what I want to address my remarks to is the thesis that >> theologians have much to learn from the methodology and intellectual >> discipline of the scientist. In my opinion a knowledge of the intellectual >> procedures in common use by a research physicist in his search for the >> organization of the universe is far from irrelevant in developing a modern >> epistemology for theology. … >> >> *Of course, most people are happy to learn as little as possible to get >> by (ignorance)*. The above is from a 1966 issue of Zygon, a journal on >> science and religion - http://www.zygonjournal.org/index.htm - you can >> look at the odd article and abstracts there, though sadly the journal >> itself is very expensive. >> >> Today's ecological, technological, and social world presents a very >> different context than that of the original audience of Genesis. To “fill >> the earth and subdue it” were not the immanent possibilities and problems >> they are today. On the other hand, the creaturely environment in and >> through which humanity has emerged to bear the image of God continues to >> present limits and challenges to promoting wholesomeness. Bearing the image >> and likeness of the creator depicted in Genesis means striving to meet each >> new challenge with creativity and compassion. In Ancient Near Eastern >> contexts these challenges arose in part from a frustrating inability for >> humankind to influence and control its natural and social environments. In >> contemporary contexts, especially in developed nations, these challenges >> arise from an apparent inability for humanity to curb its detrimental >> influence and control over its natural and social environments. >> >> 1. >> The cosmology of Genesis 1, along with its mention of the image of God, >> is very likely a polemical ideological critique of the Babylonian cosmology >> depicted in EE, in which the god Marduk ascends to power through military >> and political conquest >> After becoming chief among the gods, Marduk creates the heavens and >> earth by killing and mutilating the body of Tiamat, the goddess >> representing the chaos of the deep salt seas. He and his ally Ea create >> human beings from the blood of Tiamat's consort, Qingu, as a means of >> punishing this rival and for the purpose of conscripting creatures who toil >> in order to provide the gods with sustenance and occasion to rest. >> 2. >> The order and means of creation and the purposes of created entities are >> similar in Genesis and EE. Both Marduk and Elohim create through fiat and >> separating—light from dark, waters from waters, heavens from the Earth, and >> water from land. Heavenly luminaries also bear similar functions in each >> account. Both cosmologies define the role of the sun, moon, and stars in >> marking the passage of days and seasons. However, since the ancient >> Israelites do not involve heavenly bodies in worship, the luminaries are >> given a lower status—they “serve” not as divine sources of light but as >> carriers of light to govern the day and night.. Further, Elohim does not >> create by separating the body parts of dead deities. The forces of chaos, >> Marduk must overcome in order to create, are utterly depersonified in the >> Genesis cosmology. The goddess Tiamat is almost unrecognizable as the >> tehom—the deep sea—over which the breath (ruach) of God so effortlessly >> hovers. By contrast, Marduk must breathe or otherwise conjure a great wind >> to disturb the insides of Tiamat, affording him the opportunity to kill >> her, and only then to create. Yahweh Elohim is not a mere replacement of >> Marduk. The Israelites’ God has no personal rivals, and whatever semblance >> of primordial chaos can be found in Genesis 1, it is brushed aside by the >> constitutive utterance, “Let there be…” In Genesis created reality and its >> purposes come about through acts of divine freedom and generosity, rather >> than retribution and necessity. Yahweh Elohim empowers the creation to >> “bring forth” what it will and sees “that it was good.” Creation in the >> Hebrew Bible is an act of liberation rather than subjugation. >> 3. >> Finally, both cosmologies call for political and ethical mimesis . With >> EE the move from myth to ritual and politics is more straightforward than >> with the Genesis cosmology. Imperial conquest, such as that of the Southern >> Kingdom of Judah ca. 587–538 BCE, is a reenactment Marduk's rise to power >> over the forces of chaos. Captive peoples then provide the labor force on >> which Babylonian society and its elite depended. In the drama surrounding >> the annual New Year's festival (Akitu), the Babylonian king stood in as >> Marduk, a representation or “image” of this god on earth, set there to >> implement divine purposes. I really hate the rationalisation of slavery. >> Against this conceptual backdrop, it would appear that in the Genesis >> cosmology the royal image concept is democratized. It still bears a >> functional purpose, but in very different ways. In the midst of being >> “subdued” and “ruled over” in captivity, the Israelites are called in hope >> against hope to bear the image and likeness of God, as they “fill the >> earth, and subdue it; and rule over” its creatures, while deriving >> sustenance from its plant life . Yahweh Elohim is able to rest after >> creating humankind, but not due to the fruits of human labor (Genesis 2:3). >> Rather, this creator calls humankind to take part in this Sabbath rest, as >> Exodus 20:8–11 records. More than a despotic ruler, royal statue, or a mute >> idol, all humankind bears an “image” of God that is a “likeness” unto >> divine agency. >> >> What is ignorance when one can leave the average Christian in the dust on >> their own? Francis will know loads more than me on this kind of stuff. I >> was distracted learning biochemistry. What is ignorance? >> >> >> >> >> On Monday, March 16, 2015 at 1:19:51 AM UTC, archytas wrote: >>> >>> Good thinking in there Andrew. The eventual morality is not good for >>> free speech. It is possible to put aside manners and question what role >>> they play in ignorance and bullying. I assume this is part of Gabby's >>> frame of underlying violence. Trust is involved in this, assuming others >>> aren't the sort to really lurk in shadows with an ice pick of revenge. >>> There have been many polite societies living in the comfort of manners, >>> etiquette and politesse on the backs of slaves - all really full of >>> arrogance, disrespect and hypocrisy concealed in "learning". The violence >>> of society civilised by manners has been explored (Norbert Elias). There's >>> a rather wonderful film - 'Burke and Hare' - that links the body-snatchers >>> to Darwin and stresses hypocrisy. There's a brilliantly funny sex scene in >>> it, lamentably unusual. >>> >>> I don't really know what Gabby's frame is, though she has been courteous >>> to say I still come out to play..As a kid I was dragged along to play with >>> various cousins I had nothing in common with and some poor sod who was >>> locked in his room to learn piano two hours a day - and would have been his >>> punching bag if not too quick on my feet. It's hard to know where the >>> therapy line is drawn. >>> >>> There are many frames of interpretation. Gabby may even have been >>> instructing us on various roles and our lack of imagination, perhaps even >>> of the stubbornness of people who will speak in front of others. Most >>> people are chronically petty and insular to their own world view - at least >>> as evidenced in our literature and whatever the internet is. The tree >>> falls silently in a beige universe, whose signals we turn into a virtual >>> cognition (though there is one-way creation in this interpretation). Such >>> pennies rarely drop in our education system. >>> >>> We talk framed by context - even the idea of 'staying on thread' is a >>> frame of violence, given we often solve difficult problems from left field >>> and new frames. In academic staff meetings, one frame is making sure you >>> leave the room with nothing to do, and put students into groups and you >>> 'find' (already know) they will just discover how pointless other people >>> are other than to their own idle yet libidinous plan. The phrase 'work out >>> what you want to do' instigates panic they run away from. The better kids >>> soon desert the others. >>> >>> One can guess the frame of another and play its games in an attempt to >>> understand them. What do you do with someone who doesn't know of the beige >>> universe, its silent falling trees and on to quasars spinning at a quarter >>> of the speed of light? And those kids who can't or won't listen to this >>> other, turning everything to the soggy mediocrity of their own comfort? >>> Including the teacher who tells the kids all sorts of 'comforting' (to >>> her) stuff about the education they can't do in later life? Gabby hits >>> some nails, though I think some of them get bent and need to be taken out >>> and straightened to better explanation. >>> >>> Feedback that Bitcoin is boring, old hat and so on, is rather like the >>> falling tree - the argument should lead to recognition of how conventional >>> money is and how we might change it. This is a tough ask here, when less >>> than 10% of our MPs know nearly all money is created by private banks - >>> though one suspects the real problem is not just ignorance but an >>> unwillingness to give to the argument of another. Gabby's Hope Sunshine >>> was at least a very clever attempt at non-verbal conversation in text >>> production. I rather admire the woman - but don't tell her ... >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sunday, March 15, 2015 at 5:54:52 PM UTC, andrew vecsey wrote: >>>> >>>> I was just responding to your question. I will try to explain. Let`s >>>> say that you are "bullied" by me and ignore me for it. As I understood >>>> your >>>> question, you were pondering what happens next. How do I respond to that. >>>> One way or ways I might respond is to change your ignoring me to trying to >>>> make you look or feel ignorant. How can I do that? I give 4 possible >>>> scenarios. >>>> >>>> 1. I could continue to bully you anonymously or to make you think >>>> that I am not the only one who is bullying you by bullying you in the >>>> name >>>> of another name. >>>> 2. I could try to derail you or your line of thought hoping you >>>> will feel confused and frustrated and weakened. >>>> 3. I could make it all into a joke belittling you and making fun of >>>> you >>>> 4. I could combine the 3 ways above by using something that people >>>> consider very "deep with meaning" but is actually meaningless. For >>>> example >>>> I could refer your reaction to a well known work of art by Picasso that >>>> many claim has deep underlying genius, or say something like "Does a >>>> falling tree make a sound when there is no one to hear it?" leaving >>>> you >>>> hopefully a bit confused. >>>> >>>> As far as hearing in my reply "blind allegations", your hearing is >>>> right on. That is the reply to your other question pondering how we the >>>> members identify ourselves with in such a situation. My allegation is that >>>> we all use these ways to turn being ignored into ignorance. And that >>>> sometimes we are blind and do not see that when we try to make someone >>>> else >>>> look or feel ignorant, we are also showing our own ignorance. I claim that >>>> disrespect, arrogance, and hypocrisy are all faces of ignorance. >>>> >>>> On Sunday, March 15, 2015 at 3:17:56 PM UTC+1, Hope Sunshine wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hello and thank you for entering this multilogue here Andrew! >>>>> Unfortunately I cannot make any real connections to what you are saying >>>>> here, all I see is blind allegations. But maybe the others will be able >>>>> to >>>>> make their rhyme on it. Cheers anyways. >>>>> >>>>> Am Sonntag, 15. März 2015 09:24:56 UTC+1 schrieb andrew vecsey: >>>>>> >>>>>> Your very interesting question has been ignored by all "thinkers" in >>>>>> this group of thinkers, except for facilitator who points out the >>>>>> difference between "ignoring" and "ignorance". >>>>>> As to your question of where the "unwanted that is ignored" go? For >>>>>> those who successfully ignore it, it shouldn`t matter. It seeks >>>>>> attention >>>>>> elsewhere by changing its form. This can be done by various ways or >>>>>> combinations of ways such as: >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. Changing its name to a new name, AKA "hiding behind a new ID", >>>>>> or "showing weakness", >>>>>> 2. Derailing the topic AKA "going off topic" or "showing >>>>>> ignorance". >>>>>> 3. Making fun of it,AKA "showing arrogance". >>>>>> 4. Using shallow and meaningless words that can not be understood >>>>>> and normally assumed to be "deep", AKA "being a hypocrite". >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thursday, March 12, 2015 at 12:01:33 PM UTC+1, Hope Sunshine wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hello my fellow sunshiners, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> how is everyone doing today? Giving the best you can? Great! :-) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Let's if we can push it a little further and take a closer look at >>>>>>> the argument that ignoring the unwanted is a viable strategy in >>>>>>> surviving >>>>>>> in systems that depend on the existence of bullies. >>>>>>> How much con you identify with seeing yourself placed in such a >>>>>>> system? Which role would you like to take there? Where to can the >>>>>>> ignored >>>>>>> "stuff" escape? >>>>>>> Any suggestions? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Speak up as not to be spoken for, my fellow sunshiners. :-) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-eD7JydMkCX8/VQFx6FKiG5I/AAAAAAAAABY/F00luPRrYkg/s1600/Speak%2BUp.jpg> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
