Ron prev: The focus on science is also purely emotional. It simply values a different set of criteria. The focus is on value, for that is what mysticism and science hold in common even though science is reluctant to admit it. Scientists are mystics.
[Krimel] The point I have been making is that emotions are our sense of Value. Rationalizations and logic are not sufficient to generate commitment. What distinguishes scientists and mystics is first methodology and second standards of verification. Scientists much submit their views to collective agreement. Mystic live in their own little worlds. [Krimel] This seems a bit of over generalization. Surely you can discriminate between the quest for knowledge that at least seeks to neutralize "point of view" and one that makes is the be all and end all. Knowledge as inter-subjective consensual agreement as opposed to knowledge as pure subjectivity. Ron: This criticism may be leveled at both views and when you present it in this way it is really difficult to make a distinction between the two. They both seek to nuetralize "point of view" and knowledge as subjective, inter or pure seems to be verging on semantics in context of the broader meaning I'm aiming at. [Krimel] Scientists do not discount "point of view" they merely attempt to make it insignificant, so that the Law of Gravity does not depend at all on one's point of view. IT works whether you believe in it or not. Mystics at least as Dave seems to paint them, depend only on the contents of their own self reflection. They achieve this by pretending that nothing else exists. [Krimel] This seems all backwards or I am not at all getting what you are talking about. Meaning is reduction in uncertainty. Ron: Reduced down, meaning is value a desire. Since percept and concept is one expereince meaning is derived from their distinction not from the primacy of one over the other. [Krimel] Meaning is the value of the desire to reduce uncertainty. This is a basic almost biological urge in humans. Percepts and concepts are not the same thing. We build conceptual static patterns out of the dynamic flux of our percetions. Krimel: Western paganism? Isn't paganism relative terms? The Romans thought early Christians were pagans. And I hardly think western traditions have avoided inquiry or skepticism. Consider the sheer number of, for example, protestant denominations. Diversity, as always, equals health. [Ron:] How do we decide between conflicting scientists? [Krimel] Mostly we let them sort it out. That's their job. To sort for ourselves requires the discipline and practice of a shoulin monk. Ron: Why would'nt that discipline apply to scientists too? and do not shaolin use the same method on mystical matters? [Krimel] That is the case Ken Wilber makes. I think it is completely bogus. It is just the claim that truth is solely dependant on the community of believers. It the kind of reasoning that makes sense of Scientology and comet cults. [Krimel] Too often justification is just a way of preserving the feeling. Reason as slave to passion... Ron: But who is the slave and who is the master? or do they play good cop/bad cop in our explainations. [Krimel] It just means that commitment to a belief depends more on feelings than on reason. Read Platt's posts or dmb's or especially gav's their justification is emotional not rational. But it is not as though reason and passion are necessarily at odds. They are both indicators of both what and why we hold the beliefs we do. Wasn't there talk here not long ago about advertising's appeal to the reptile brain versus reason? We respond non-verbally and non-conceptually to a host of stimuli. Artists or every sort, entertainers and marketing people are equally adept in manipulating this. 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/
