On 4/24/09 10:32 PM, "markhsmit" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Joe,
>
> I agree with you on the distinction between quantity and quality (not to be
> confused with
> Quality, which I am still grappling with). I appears to me we have grabbed
> quantity at
> the expense of quality. There has to be a balance between the materialistic
> and
> the spiritual. While we have progressed much in materialism, our spirituality
> has suffered. Some say that religion is an escape, but so is our present need
> for distraction through things. Pleasure doesn't come from the outside, but
> from
> the inside. It seems to me we have de-evolved in spirituality since the
> Upanishads. It is so easy to get caught up in the five senses, that the sixth
> sense, that of proprioception (at least as I use it), is lost.
>
> During a discussion with a Buddhist priest the other day, he brought up that
> Zen buddhism enables our spiritual maturity to match our physical
> maturity. I hadn't thought of Zen in that way before.
>
On Friday 24 April 2009 10:32 PM ³markhsmit² writes:
<snip>
> Religion and Spirituality suffer when a scientific method is used to describe
> them. Because it can't, religion is thought to be inferior. I would say the
same of
> Science when spiritual methods are used to describe it. It is possible that
Quality
> may bridge this dilemma. I do not believe that Quality can be measured
> scientifically, but it can be felt spiritually. Our language is
scientifically-based
> where words have meaning, but used only in relation to other words. It is a
self
> sustaining circle. Breaking out of that circle cannot be done except perhaps
through
> metaphors (pictures, music, dance etc, are hard to transmit in a post).
<snip>
Hi Markhsmith and all,
I do not agree that Religion and Spirituality suffer from a scientific
method except, perhaps, in the ridicule of experience outside of
mathematical calculation. Good Grief! I don¹t see numbers running around.
Some accommodation has been made! So I would agree that the language of the
scientific method suffers from things left out. I would suggest
³mechanical² and ³conscious² distinguish a scientific method as it does
all methods. There are words of evolution that IMO the scientific method
accepts, SQ/DQ.
Joe
>
> Transferring spiritual feelings is a tough thing. Feelings become thoughts
> which become words, which, when when received become thoughts and then become
> feelings. Something expansive becomes narrowed and then becomes expansive
> again.
> It is like trying to describe an ocean through an eye dropper.
>
> Cheers,
> Willblake2
>
>
> On Apr 24, 2009, at 12:04:33 PM, "Joseph Maurer" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Friday 24 April 2009 7:56 AM Krimel writes:
>
> [Krimel]
> For the umpteenth time I have to say that what makes us all uneasy about
> science is its sheer dynamic quality. In the past century the pace of change
> wrought by science was so rapid and so full of unintended consequences that
> many are rightly fearful of the consequences. You are quite correct to note
> that we are, "Always
> wanting more, never satisfied, relating to the world through objects." But I
> suspect that is as true of primitive as of modern man. It is the scale and
> proliferation of objects in the modern world that turns quantitative changes
> into qualitative ones.
>
> I would and have argued that much of the fault for all of this can be laid
> at the feet of philosophers, theologians and politicians who have not been
> able to evolve new systems of governance, value and morality to keep pace
> with revolutions in technology. But in the end that is all just finger
> pointing. The fact is that we are in a positive feedback loop with regard to
> the growth of knowledge and it is the simple lack of static latching that
> threatens our survival.
>
> Krimel
>
>
> Hi Krimel and all,
>
> [Joe]
> As I read the above I have no idea of the metaphysical implications. In SOM
> the division of everything is into substance and nine accidents. The first
> two accidents are Quality and Quantity. In MOQ there is only DQ undefined
> and SQ defined Quality. Substance and accidents are merely descriptive
> metaphors in MOQ.
>
> [Joe]
> I feel the uneasiness about science is the lack of metaphysical specifics.
> In SOM mathematics cannot be applied to Quality only to Quantity. Modern
> Science rejects SOM and proclaims that it has metaphysical status with a
> mathematical language. Hopefully on a MOQ discussion list, some attempt
> will be made to discuss the language of mathematics, Quantity, in terms of
> Quality as Krimel has suggested. Or maybe such a discussion is doomed from
> a lack of specifics.
>
> Joe
>
> On 4/24/09 7:56 AM, "Krimel" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Willblake2,
>>
>> Nicely said, in fact much of what you say made me wish I had said it. You
>> called to mind all the times I have said something similar but not as well.
>> One of my ongoing themes has been that the scientific method consists of
>> three steps: Check it out, Mess with it and See what happens. All else is
>> elaboration and commentary. As you point out science is not some alien
>> obscure method of gnosis, it is ingrained in our everyday approach to the
>> world. It is the methodology of children learning to interact with the world
>> and people around them.
>>
>> I agree that science is an illusion in sense of a particular way of
>> synthesizing and organizing perception. It is not "false" or a dream it is
>> just a particular way of seeing and as such should be judged in comparison
>> to other ways of seeing. My point has long been that while science is
>> certainly not the only way of seeing, it does set limits on other ways of
>> seeing. In the conflicts between science and religion in the west, from the
>> heliocentric model of the solar system to Darwin, religion is ultimately
>> forced to alter dogma that runs counter to scientific evidence.
>>
>> You offer up a key phrase that I would really like to highlight, "The more
>> useful these structures are, the more they are used." This really gets to
>> the heart it. As a structure is used and reused it is strengthened. It
>> grows. We see this in our muscle cells, we see it in the flow of rivers, in
>> the trunks of tree, in paths that become roads which get paved and then
>> widened. This is the essence of how networks with their fractal structure
>> form and grow. I think this is what Pirsig is pointing to with "betterness."
>> While his focus on value, I fear leads to mushy thinking, "usefulness"
>> focuses on function and points to how static structures arise and grow as a
>> result of the flow of dynamic forces. This is critical to biology and the
>> precursors of it are easily identified in the inorganic world as well. It is
>> seen as self similarity across scale. It is the basis of both hierarchical
>> and networked models not only of organic growth but of cognitive and
>> semantic organizational systems as well. Pirsig's riff on random access and
>> his technique for organizing slips of paper into trays can be summarized as,
>> "The more
>> useful these structures are, the more they are used." All I could add to
>> that is that out of the "trunks" of well used structures, grow twigs and
>> branches which sprout into infinite detail. This is a point Pirsig sadly
>> misses with his claim that science collapses because of the infinite
>> formation of hypotheses.
>>
>> You also emphasize that science is measurement. To that I would add that
>> measurement is an intellectual tool that greatly expands our innate
>> abilities. We all have innate abilities to estimate space, time and
>> probability but the ability to quantify and specify has led to vast
>> increases in our ability to predict and control the world around us. The
>> Greek philosophical revolution was largely the result of increased mastery
>> of spatial relationships. The post Newtonian revolution was greatly aided
>> and abetted by more precise time pieces and in the modern era formal
>> techniques for specifying probability are changing the world yet again.
>>
>> When you say basically that science is a way of making our desires come
>> true, that really is it. Science allows us to turn concepts into precepts.
>> Those ghostly ideas are given shape and form, structure and function.
>> Fantasy becomes reality. Star Trek communicators become cell phones. This is
>> a point made by William James. He says the concepts are purely derived from
>> percepts but that they constantly interact. Concepts or idea heavily
>> influence our understanding of the world, so much so that were mold reality
>> to become our concepts. Baudrillard takes this so far as to say that
>> concepts are becoming more real than the "merely" real. Our conceptual
>> structures have become so powerful that he speaks of the hyperreal.
>>
>> For the umpteenth time I have to say that what makes us all uneasy about
>> science is its sheer dynamic quality. In the past century the pace of change
>> wrought by science was so rapid and so full of unintended consequences that
>> many are rightly fearful of the consequences. You are quite correct to note
>> that we are, "Always
>> wanting more, never satisfied, relating to the world through objects." But I
>> suspect that is as true of primitive as of modern man. It is the scale and
>> proliferation of objects in the modern world that turns quantitative changes
>> into qualitative ones.
>>
>> I would and have argued that much of the fault for all of this can be laid
>> at the feet of philosophers, theologians and politicians who have not been
>> able to evolve new systems of governance, value and morality to keep pace
>> with revolutions in technology. But in the end that is all just finger
>> pointing. The fact is that we are in a positive feedback loop with regard to
>> the growth of knowledge and it is the simple lack of static latching that
>> threatens our survival.
>>
>> Krimel
>>
>>
>> __________________________________________________
>>
>> Hi Marsha,
>>
>> Scientific knowledge?
>>
>> In our world today, scientific knowledge encompasses all forms of
>> measurement using numbers. 50 cattle in a herd is scientific. "He
>> is twice as handsome as I" is not scientific. However, numbers are
>> a concept, an illusion. So it could be said that science is illusion.
>> I would agree with this, but I don't want to get into a semantic war.
>>
>> Scientific knowledge builds in the same way as philosophical
>> knowledge. Assumptions are made, typically based on observation.
>> These assumptions are then built up as knowledge. The more
>> useful these structures are, the more they are used. Science is
>> passed along through the virus of words.
>>
>> Perhaps scientific knowledge is an interpretation of reality. But,
>> it is not reality, just like the description of a cow is not a cow.
>>
>> Science, that is measurement, is used in a variety of ways, the science
>> of economics, the science of religion, the science of philosophy. But, in
>> the same way, the perspective can be changed to say: the economics
>> of science, the religion of science, and the philosophy of science.
>> The religion of science would be a good way to characterize the
>> 21st century. And like any religion, it is hard to describe alternatives
>> to the believers.
>>
>> I do not believe that science is necessarily an institution, but is a way
>> of thought. I personally believe that there are many more things that
>> can't be measured (ever) than can be measured. So science has a
>> limited use in our experience. I believe you are rebelling against the
>> domination of scientific (measurement base) thought, and I agree with you
>> there.
>>
>> We are not funding science, we are funding the promises of science,
>> which means we are funding our desires. I agree with you that our
>> desires are misplaced, but I feel that is the nature of man. Always
>> wanting more, never satisfied, relating to the world through objects.
>>
>> Because science now requires specialization, it has become a foreign
>> endeavor. But it is basic humans doing it, like you and me. Trust?
>> Trust comes from within, it is not something that is given to you.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Willblake2
>>
>> Moq_Discuss mailing list
>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>> Archives:
>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>
>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>
>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
