[Krimel]
Scientists do not discount "point of view" they merely attempt to make it
insignificant
Ron:
And THAT is a problem, a huge one. For point of view is all we ever have.
to reduce it to insignificance is buring our head in the sand in preference of
a type certainty. When the value of point of view is realized for
what it is, primary,
it throws out a kind of universal certainty, one we have grown accustomed to
as a security blanket, reducing certainty to a consensus of educated guesses,
verifyable in their context.
Which is the best we can hope for. Therefore it would be imperitive
as a scientist
to understand this and pursue a beginners mind in relation to it.
Myticism questions certainty, it reduces what we think we know to a collection
of assumptions about experience. I would think every "good" scientist would
recognize the value of understanding this.
________________________________
From: X Acto <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, July 6, 2009 9:53:02 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] Reductionism
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.
Ron:
So you are saying that since science is a shared culturally subjective view,
it is more verifyable and there fore more reliable or more "truth" full.
within it's own cultural context, sure. But the same may be applied
to mysticism
if the expereinces of the mystic are shared and verified by others
in their culture
it too is "true" in the same cultural context.
Idunno, I think it is simply a matter of preffering one little world
over another.
[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.
Ron:
The law of Gravity is a mathematical formula, it "works" if one
understands and
believes in mathematics. The phenomena may be understood in a variety of
ways, it may be measured in a variety of ways.
This seems to be the crux of the arguement, are we argueing YOUR conception
of mysticism or Daves?
Mystics, as I know the term, seek to rid themselves of a priori
conceptions about
experience, which is what you say science is after.
I think your preconcieved notions and prejudices regarding the term tend
to allow you to paint them as rationalists simply because they use
self reflection
to arrive at the nuetralizing of a priori concepts.
[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.
Ron:
And we build static perceptions out of conceptual static patterns. The loop
is constantly in mix with raw sense data, raw sense percept data is
meaningless
without concept in the context of experienceing as a human being
living in a society. Percepts and concepts are a distinction made in
regard to one
expereince. To reduce past one experience in the context of a human being
living in a society is venturing into concept. We may "deduce" from expereince
that percept is logically primary and this would in all probability
be a likely
"truth" of the matter. But thats exactly what it is. A deduction.
[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.
Ron:
In fact it does makes sense of them, it explains them and it should serve
as a powerful reminder of this fact. When we start to defend our beliefs
as though they are concrete universal objective realities, then we
should take a step back and take a long hard look with this concept in mind.
Truth is not solely dependant on a community of believers it must correspond
with expereince, how that expereince is interpreted dictates the truth value.
That interpretation is a shared conceptual framework dependant on a community.
I think the "interpretation" of "truth" IS dependant on the
community of believers,
you appealed to this in the validity of scientific verification,
unless you are saying
that objectivism is valid and "true" and a god's eye view in fact IS
attainable at least in method.
Free of any cultual influence. Which is what you seem to be implying.
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/
