Politics, God and Religion vs. Science

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 15701 - 15720 of total 22787 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
rSin

Trad climber
calif
Jun 14, 2013 - 10:26am PT
its almost a shame the discursive mind merely smiles at its gains
doesnt market them

almost
MikeL

climber
SANTA CLARA, CA
Jun 14, 2013 - 11:21am PT
so in understanding our constructions, which are logical, we begin to understand what we construct.

Well, yes, but I wouldn't say that our constructions are logical. Many of them seem to be not only illogical but also insidiously unavailable to our consciousness (e.g., instinct). I'll go back to Jung and Freud: we project what we think, feel, believe (which come from archetypes, symbols, etc.), and then we "read" our projections as reality. And around and around it goes; it's a vicious circle. A self discovers itself through the process: that is, consciousness becomes aware of itself. But it's all consciousness, Ed. It can't be anything but that.

Of course, this is only a simple articulation. It must be wrong. I'm lying. Every time I say that there is some thing or some object, I'm telling a falsehood--and most of the time I know it. But that's part of talking, thinking, teaching, and conversing. We're just talking. But now and then, something that you say or something that I say has a magical effect on the other, and some light bulb will turn on. There's no explanation for it.

Words (labels) and language can't function as signifiers of reality. Language is a matter of usage. Meaning is only conveyed by a result of associations triggered by a sequence of words, but language doesn't tell anything except about itself (see, Saussure, Boas). Derrida said that all reading (any text, speech) is more or less a matter of misinterpretation. When we rely upon the denotation (dictionary definition) of words, we think we know something, but all we know are the words and concepts. If anything matters, it's what they point to. That's where experience comes in.

You are saying there is one true universe out there, we just can't know it.

No, I'm afraid I'm not. I'm saying (gulp!) that I don't think there is a universe out anywhere, and I'm saying that I think we can know that. (Yeah, that's insane. It is a total paradigm shift. I'm pretty sure I'm out here alone with this view on this thread.)

I like your idea about "adventures," Ed. It's all good, you know? I mean you can't not be adventuring. That's consciousness.

Ward Trotter

Trad climber
Jun 14, 2013 - 12:39pm PT
What is the post-modern criticism of Mongolian gazelle language?

That Mongollian gazelles don't exist except as a convenient production of existential consciousness.
If there is evidence that such gazelles existed, or for that matter Mongolia itself ,
long before human consciousness, as in the fossil record, this of course means that human consciousness has metaphysically journeyed back into pre-human time to prefabricate these gazelles. Either that or the evidence for gazelles before the advent of human consciousness has been superimposed upon the universe by contemporary zoologists or by paleontologists who have manufactured their existence out of the whole cloth of their own conscious minds- somewhat like a conspiracy of sorts -an epistemological conspiracy of gazelle production.

Here is an early attempt at the de novo metaphysical configuration of the first gazelle.
Although clearly crude ,it must be remembered that just moments before its invention by human awareness the gazelle was an indeterminate, undifferentiated quantum soup.
Note the existence of only 3 distinct legs.
Kudos to Dr. Hans Holbein of Madison , Wisconsin for the existential dreaming up of a 4th leg.

Credit: Ward Trotter

MikeL

climber
SANTA CLARA, CA
Jun 14, 2013 - 02:19pm PT
What is the post-modern criticism of Mongolian gazelle language?

I dunno, Ed. I guess I'd say that the PRL presents an explanation, a story, which could be useful, predictive, and interesting. It could even provoke insights about reality. But if anyone believes that any of the objects Are Objects with graspable existence, I'd say they are mistaken. But I could not be sure of it, because I can't speak for other people's consciousness. I can only observe my own consciousness. In my consciousness, none of those things have existence; indeed, none of them even have experience for me. If I put myself into the genre of conversation, I might be able to follow along with it, maybe even make a contribution, who knows? But, in the end, it's just a series of words to me without experiential referents, or graspable existence.

(I imagine that probably none of that is satisfying to you.)

(I appreciate postmodern criticism, but I no longer read in that vein.)
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Jun 14, 2013 - 02:26pm PT
just moments before its invention by human awareness the gazelle was an indeterminate, undifferentiated quantum soup.


Not so fast there Trotter old boy. No one is saying human awareness invented anything. Look at it this way, if you have the sac: Given that our human senses and brain organize external physical things into forms in which we can get hold of them, what part of the gazell do you believe would remaing the same if you had five sentient but radially different types of conscious beings, with five radically different sets of sense organs and five different brains that organized the outter world in different ways. Are you saying that the gazell as we humans see it would remain the very same, and that the four other life forms would "see" their own version of the human drawn animal?

What do you make of the Mike's notion that there is no independent gazelle or any thing, that all of reality is interdependent - meaning in the real world, which is only the present world, we cannot divide the objective and subjective at all.

And Ed, I am not saying that you can conjure up some physical thing that is different from or more than the underlying parts. What I am syhing is that the "discursive mind," which in by no means the whole mind, has limitations when interpreting reality, and if you only use the discursive part of our minds, there will be much that is lost on both a physicalist and a wuwu mustic. That has nothing to do with our biasis per how to work with reality, but rather how the discursive mind actually works, the PROCESS by which any us come to know anything. If we look at the process carefully, it will be made clean. Are you open to such an experiment? My sense of this go-around is that the problems arise from a lack of information or data, and so long as you are lacking same, there is no way to reach you on these points. What I propose is a very simply and pretty fast process, and it will remove all doubt as to the general truth of it all.

JL
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Jun 14, 2013 - 02:46pm PT
I like Pooh!
Ward Trotter

Trad climber
Jun 14, 2013 - 03:01pm PT
No one is saying human awareness invented anything. Look

That's exactly what you have been and Mikel have been suggesting.
In the same post , to wit:

What do you make of the Mike's notion that there is no independent gazelle or any thing,

Are you saying that the gazell as we humans see it would remain the very same, and that the four other life forms would "see" their own version of the human drawn animal?

Yes I am saying that the gazelle we humans see would substantially be the gazelle that aliens from beta reticulli would see, albeit with some variations, that is, perhaps the aliens have developed natural infrared vision much like the technology we have invented. In that case they might see the heat the gazelle emanates in addition to all the other wavelengths.( like that TV commercial where the gazelles spot the Lion , Carl, using infrared binoculars)
The external gazelle would remain the same identical gazelle, whomever perceived it. The mere act of rudimentary perception neither creates nor destroys the objective gazelle, nor changes the gazelle in any way. The gazelle still wakes up tomorrow hungry or horny, whether a scientist , an alien, or a zen dude perceives him.

we cannot divide the objective and subjective at all.

We can't? Doesn't this fly in the face of your various subjectivist contentions all along?

I mean, you have all along insisted on a rigid distinction betwixt the objective and subjective.
Preoccupation with the objective you have characterized as a " cult of mind" whereas by contrast the subjective is the gateway to JuJu -hood. LOL

If the two are essentially seamless then you guys shouldn't worry that empiricists go around over-measuring everything. Perhaps their evaluating minds will have them emerge into the subjective realm via a back door -- in the same way it is theorized that a thing might emerge into another parallel universe through a wormhole, or some such.
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Jun 14, 2013 - 03:56pm PT

perhaps the aliens have developed natural infrared vision much like the technology we have invented.

Perhaps the aliens could "see" what the Gazelle was thinking. Or what was on the Gazelles conscious.
WHOULD they see any difference between one Gazelle or another?

And perhaps "they" had the same technology to "see" into humans. Then what would they "see"??
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Jun 14, 2013 - 04:32pm PT
Very few people will ever experience the full impact of making a scientific discovery. Examples would be Archimedes' eureka moment, Newton and every other thought he had, Kekulé and the benzene ring, Dyson and QED, Feynman and weak decay.

I think each person makes a "scientific discovery" each day.., but, their not motivated to write a term paper on it.

As for those "Big Name Discoverer's", what provokes them to prosue a "point"?
The pursuit of Truth? I think not! Maybe Ego?

Doesn't combining the names of Newton or Einstein to the "discovery" of gravity inflict to the layman that they invented it? When gravity was actually there all along? They just found it,
and "termed" it.

Same thing with "first accents". The term implies that the "first accenionist" created that climb?
If I would have shown up In the Valley in 54' with a crane, and I seiged The
Nose, before Harding(God rest his soul). Would I be remarkable?
I don't think anyone "CLIMBED" The Nose until Lynn did in 95'.
WhAts more prominent? What's more scientific? What's more


Edit; I like Piglet too.
WBraun

climber
Jun 14, 2013 - 04:37pm PT
They just found it, and "termed" it.

Science doesn't find anything ever.

It's all revealed when the "Time" needs it to be revealed.

The foolish so called scientists think they discover everything thru their methods alone.

It's all revealed according to time and circumstances when needed only .......


Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Jun 14, 2013 - 04:41pm PT
First, Trotter Old Boy, distinguishing between objective and subjective does not ultimately mean there is a true duality between the two. Heads and tails are featured on many coins, on the same coins, but in no case are heads actually tails. The yin/yang is represented inside one circle, but you don't get to go to the circle till you grapple with what is inside.

That's the point of harping on separating out the subjctive and objective. They both form one reality, but quantifiers like to consider the objective as a stand alone thing, and noting is stand alone. Nothng has independent existence. The fact that my discursive mind can objectify something, and measure it, and test it, and can yank one tree out of the forest to analyze does in no wise mean there are trees that live all alone somewhere, separate from not only the forst but from life and perception and reality itself. This is how the discursive mind tricks all of us, but you will never come to "know" anything outside of your own perceiving of it, so our true efforts of removing the observer from reality are always doomed to fail, by design.

Not the next part, which is still throwing you and which I think you are ascribing to the wild imagining of a "Zen dude," who is on a kind of acid trip with "objective reality," which according to your discursive mind and your sense aperati, tells you that a rose is the very same rose by any name.

You said: The mere act of rudimentary perception neither creates nor destroys the objective gazelle, nor changes the gazelle in any way.

Do you have any idea what rudimentary perception actually is? Do you know how the process works in concert with awareness. My sense of it is, if you'r eever going to understand this, you're going to have to back up from th Gazelle or the hammerhead and first get an idea what is involved in even having a rudimenntgary perception. Otherwise you're going to look at your mind as a mirror or a reliable replicator not of what you brain is organiaing for you to grasp with your sense data and discursive mind, but of an imagined and brain-created form you like to call "objective reality."

This is where you get to leave off with the speculation and dig into the solid stuff of direct empiricle investigation. This is where the arguments fall back and you can see for yourself.

JL
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Jun 14, 2013 - 04:49pm PT
OK, Thats a Big 10-4 Rubber Duck!

But, you must serve this by an itemized line by line inventory so that the scientific minds can c-a-t-o-r-i-g-i-z-e..

Jus Play'in
BB
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Jun 14, 2013 - 04:57pm PT
That's the point of harping on separating out the subjctive and objective. They both form one reality, but quantifiers like to consider the objective as a stand alone thing, and noting is stand alone. Nothng has independent existence. The fact that my discursive mind can objectify something, and measure it, and test it, and can yank one tree out of the forest to analyze does in no wise mean there are trees that live all alone somewhere, separate from not only the forst but from life and perception and reality itself. This is how the discursive mind tricks all of us, but you will never come to "know" anything outside of your own perceiving of it, so our true efforts of removing the observer from reality are always doomed to fail, by design.

^^^Poetic...



Edit: do U have a trademark?
Dr. F.

Big Wall climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 14, 2013 - 05:00pm PT
Credit: Dr. F.
MikeL

climber
SANTA CLARA, CA
Jun 14, 2013 - 05:01pm PT
Perhaps the aliens could "see" what the Gazelle was thinking. Or what was on the Gazelles conscious.

Inventive and interesting.

Perhaps this is something some of us can already do, or that all of could do, if sensitized to noticing it. I suspect we have far more than 5 senses.

When you and I meet on the street, and I say, "how's it going," so do you give a pleasant social response, do you think, "mmmmm, I dunno: how IS it going for me today?", or do you do or say something that falls outside of either? What's really going on when we're writing to each other here? Are we communicating, or are there other things altogether different going on?

I'm getting the sense that communications, visions, hearing, tactile feelings, thoughts are simply the most rudimentarily perceived energy flows. I mean a lot seems to be going on, but calling it (labeling) what it seems to be seems rudimentary, almost childish.

So instead of enunciating some social pleasantry when we meet or attempting to respond to the words denotatively, perhaps I should simply say, "energy flow," and you say the same.

One can almost feel the flux of energy when one walks into a room, eavesdrops on to a conversation, enters into a chat room, touches another person, or observes animals in their habitats. It can be electrifying and profound. But since we've been taught to pay attention to only our physical senses, we discount these things. "They're nothing but silly superstitions" or "complex visual cues."

I could see beings sensing what gazelle were thinking or feeling.


Edit: What are those, Dr. F. Looks good enough to eat!
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Jun 14, 2013 - 05:01pm PT
I Love THIS life!!!
Ward Trotter

Trad climber
Jun 14, 2013 - 05:22pm PT
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Jun 14, 2013 - 05:23pm PT
, if sensitized to noticing it.

I try to become more sensitive to the Hummingbirds that enter my yard everyday!
(I have some good pics Mh2). And also to the lizards. They all seem VERY predictive, and droll..

I think I was too sensitized to my dog "jake". I believe God let him be taken away early,
so that I would become MORE sensitiZed toward my family?
cintune

climber
The Utility Muffin Research Kitchen
Jun 14, 2013 - 06:20pm PT
The irony lies in trying to use the analytical tool of language to describe (and apparently promote) a state of consciousness that doesn't require (and apparently resents) language, because language points to things, and things are exactly what it's not interested in.

Let me guess - "No, you simpleton, that's precisely where you've got it wrong, and seemingly always will."

Mmmm. Okay, then.

So, in my darkness, I also wonder about the repeated comment that zen "has no content." Because that sounds like, really zen dude, but something that has no content would, by definition, leave no trace. And yet we have these apparent things out in that shimmering void that look like this:



...that by virtue of their existence denote content, even if that content is essentially only an apprehension.






Let me guess....
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Jun 14, 2013 - 06:31pm PT
Guessing is futile.
Messages 15701 - 15720 of total 22787 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews