On Sunday 26 April 2009 11:26 PM Markhsmit questions Joe: 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 Hi Joe, Dude, I can't understand what you are saying. What is an IMO?, What's with all the 3 2 quotes? What things are left out of the language of science? What is so distinguishing about mechanical and conscious. If the scientific method accepts SQ/DQ then how do you measure them? My point was that to apply a scientific method to spirituality may not be adequate in the same way as applying a spiritual method to science. You may be addressing this point with your comment, but it sure appears obscure to me. I haven't seen any numbers running around recently either, unless you are talking women. (OMG! sexism) Cheers, Willblake2
Hi Markhsmit and all, As Marsha pointed out IMO is better written as imho (in my humble opinion). I am sorry my writing is so confusing. I will try to do better. I use quotations marks to highlight a word that is obscure to me. Imho the language of science leaves out a description of its metaphysical origins. It relies on an assumed acceptance of mathematical logic without a metaphysical description of logic or how mathematics fits in. Them bones! Them bones! Them dry bones! The arm bone connected to the shoulder bone! Them bones gonna walk around! A nice melody! Conscious/Mechanical, metaphysically describe a social level with free will. DQ (undefined) (conscious)/ SQ (defined) (mechanical) is the ruler. To measure is an action regarding quantity which is from SOM metaphysics, which MOQ replaces with experience. ³How does it strike me?² is a measure open to research by further questions. Assuming that to apply a scientific method to spirituality, or to apply a spiritual method to science may not be adequate, presupposes a metaphysics to limit the terms. Otherwise whatever you say is the metaphysical assumption. It is difficult to comprehend metaphysical assumptions when you obscurely change your point of view. You seem to correctly distinguish numbers of the female sex. Imho a number supports its own logic in a moment of indefinable experience. Joe On 4/26/09 11:26 PM, "markhsmit" <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Apr 26, 2009, at 12:44:18 PM, "Joseph Maurer" <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > Hi Joe, > > Dude, I can't understand what you are saying. What is an IMO?, What's with > all the 3 2 quotes? > What things are left out of the language of science? What is so > distinguishing about > mechanical and conscious. If the scientific method accepts SQ/DQ then how do > you measure > them? > > My point was that to apply a scientific method to spirituality may not be > adequate in the > same way as applying a spiritual method to science. You may be addressing > this > point with your comment, but it sure appears obscure to me. I haven't seen > any > numbers running around recently either, unless you are talking women. (OMG! > sexism) > > 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/
