David, you raise good points, as usual:
> This is the standard MoQ party line. But in science, RMP allows, "That the > pencil is mightier than the pen because it has an eraser." And in the last > 20 or so years both ends of science's pencil have been very busy repairing > and building not just new foundations but whole new stories. While the > philosopher's pencils keep trying to catch up. > Perhaps. "the philsophers" is a nebulous group for me to envision. I think the evolution of abundant scholarship at our fingertips, and the widespread opportunity for intelligent dialogue outside of the university that the internet has introduced into society, portends for a bigger shift than from Pen to erasable Pencil. It's cut and paste and spellcheck and wiki... I think the philosophers are catching up fast. albeit not in a widely recognized or academically controlled fashion. But hey, it's rare enough I find myself congruent to "the party line" so let me bask in that accolade for a paragraph or so. > > > [John] > The > > only problem then, is bringing scientists to the right frame of mind. > > [Dave] > And this "right frame of mind" is accomplished through, Buddhism? The MoQ? > Pragmatism by Royce? James? Some pasted together combination of all of the > above or more? Sounds like Platt-i-tudes to me. Just change your mind and > your life will be "born again." Where have I heard that before? > John: But how can you argue with that? You will be born again if you can change your mind. There's no doubt about that obvious plattitude. And what I see as the most hopeful source is the "pasted together combination of all the above". For it is in the comparison of the varieties of experience - religious and otherwise, that transcendant meaning is abstracted and old problems fade away. From a particular viewpoint, the mind/body problem is no longer a problem - but a solution. That's the way I take the conclusions that Platt and I discussed about the idea of Intelligent design being just another way of construing intelligence to "dead nature". > It very easy to agree, the Noble Eightfold Path: right understanding, right > thought, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right > mindfulness, and right concentration, are powerful ideas, worthy goals with > universal appeal to scientists and non. It's yet another thing to suppose > that being in the "right state of mind," say "Nibb?na", while drowning > makes > you suffer much less or dodges death in this reality. I agree Dave. The right frame of mind doesn't help you when you're already drowning, except perhaps in the way that accepting the inevitable with grace is always a good thing. But the right frame of mind certainly helps you to avoid situations where the water's over your head. For that matter, most people drown because they panic. A man with the mind of a fish doesn't mind the water. However, I find it immensely helpful to remember that "right understanding, right thought, right speech" are not goals to be attained, but goals to strive for. Ideals toward which we strive, and acceptance of the process AS a process, helps us to attain peace, even when we fall short. I guess you could term that "drowning in peace" but I find it comforting to me. > It easy to say that > "Quality is reality" it hard to see how believing this solves the "hard > problems" of science like consciousness or quantum indeterminacy. > > See? Quantum indeterminancy isn't a problem, it's a solution. Reality is whatever you choose, so choose good. No problem. Thanks Dave, for the thoughts and response. John 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/md/archives.html
