Politics, God and Religion vs. Science

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 15901 - 15920 of total 22349 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
jgill

Boulder climber
Colorado
Sep 9, 2013 - 01:03am PT
There are no final lasting equilibriums; everything is in flux, moving, incoherent, and impermanent, and interdependent

Good to see your POV back in play, MikeL.

Best wishes for your lovely wife.
FortMentäl

Social climber
Albuquerque, NM
Sep 9, 2013 - 03:20am PT
But almost no one is really looking . . . because They Know.


Huh?
MikeL

climber
SANTA CLARA, CA
Sep 9, 2013 - 11:57am PT
Fort Mental:

All of us believe we know the answers to what and why. When a person believes they already know something, they quit looking. What they see is what they believe. Experiencing awareness before one's beliefs takes hold is just about impossible.

Perhaps ayahuasca is a door opener--at least that's what I've heard. (Anyone try that stuff?)

My teacher says that you know you've gone off the reservation (delusion) when you think that anything is anything--when you realize that you're relying upon an interpretation. It's not that interpretations are wrong or bad (they are a part of reality as much as anything could be), but when we take interpretations seriously or concretely, that's when we are in delusion.


(Jgill: I have to say, you always seem to be civil and a gentle man. Thx. Be well.)
go-B

climber
Hebrews 1:3
Sep 9, 2013 - 12:30pm PT
bump!
Marlow

Sport climber
OSLO
Sep 9, 2013 - 12:31pm PT
MikeL

The description of the experience is not the experience - in this we agree.

But let us say that tere's an accident - two cars crashing. Ten different witnesses describe the accident in 10 different ways (having different opinions about what happened and maybe even opinions about the motivations or intentions of the drivers). At the same time there's a black box in each car monitoring everything happening and being said in the two cars and there's four different videocameras filming the accident from four different angels giving us a clear picture of what has happened in space and time. My view would be that the black boxes and the videos would give us a quite good picture of what has really happened between the two cars and who has eventually broken the law or rules of driving on US roads. And that will be so even if the witnesses are describing the accident in very different ways.

Upon over-generalization:
If I say that I bought an apple today and your wife says that she bought an apple today and you say that you bought an apple today, and from this you generalize and say that we all bought an apple today (indicating us three) I would agree, but if you from this conclude that everybody bought an apple today - well - then I would say that you are overgeneralizing.
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Sep 9, 2013 - 12:52pm PT
But let us say that tere's an accident - two cars crashing. Ten different witnesses describe the accident in 10 different ways (having different opinions about what happened and maybe even opinions about the motivations or intentions of the drivers). At the same time there's a black box in each car monitoring everything happening and being said in the two cars and there's four different videocameras filming the accident from four different angels giving us a clear picture of what has happened in space and time. My view would be that the black boxes and the videos would give us a quite good picture of what has really happened between the two cars and who has eventually broken the law or rules of driving on US roads. And that will be so even if the witnesses are describing the accident in very different ways.
---


You've simply isolated out certain physical aspects of the experience, which is greater than what the video cameras recorded. IOWs, the qualia or subjective reality of being in the wreck is much more than the digital/visual representation of said wreck on a camera, which is nothing but electronic signals till consciousness renders it meaning.

JL
Marlow

Sport climber
OSLO
Sep 9, 2013 - 01:15pm PT
Largo

To repeat: The description of the experience is not the experience.

But by help of the black boxes and the cameras we can come closer to what really happened between the two physical cars. To isolate this from the pain and the experience of being in the cars is a good thing to do, if you want to be able to describe what happened between the two cars.

Intersubjectivity comes into play when describing what is happening in the videos, but describing and reaching consensus about what happened between the two cars is much easier by help of the black boxes and videos than by help of the different descriptions the witnesses have given.
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Sep 9, 2013 - 02:20pm PT
Intersubjectivity comes into play when describing what is happening in the videos, but describing and reaching consensus about what happened between the two cars is much easier by help of the black boxes and videos than by help of the different descriptions the witnesses have given.
--


I agree with this entirely so long as we are not saying that the physical description is a de facto look at the experience, and that the experience is an unreliable resource per what "really happened."

The mistake we often make here is to think that the experience was just a kind of subjective representation of the actual, physical reality of the wreck, when in fact the wreck was just one of may elements of the experience. We we try and reify the wreck as the "real" thing, we do so at the expense of the experience, which is our fundamental reality. Our discursive minds lead us to believe the opposite, which is a survival strategy and a gift of evolution. It takes some screwy kind of counterintuitive work to see that isolating out the physical from the experience reifies the physical as somehow "more real" or more fundamental than the experience itself.

We think backwards in the way just described because we survived that way and that's how we have some control over physical reality. The mind really is a wonderful thing. But when we look at reality only as a physical thing, we have huge blind spots. When we flip it - which ain't easy and makes no sense at first - the rational/discursive mind believes that what we will do is swap out a subjective view of material/objective reality for a subjective interpretation - like a person's subjective take on the accident, as opposed to what is recorded in the black box.

What the discursive mind does not and cannot know is that when you flip the paradigm, and view reality as though concsiousness was the real deal, the blind spots start filling in, NOT with the false and imgained "things" the discursive mind is afraid of or warns about, but that which lies beyond the discursive altogether, that which we can never capture in the black box.

JL
Marlow

Sport climber
OSLO
Sep 9, 2013 - 02:27pm PT
Wilfred Burchett, Australian and American politics

"In the immediate aftermath of the atomic bomb, the allied occupation authorities banned all mention of radiation poisoning and insisted that people had been killed or injured only by the bomb's blast. It was the first big lie. "No radioactivity in Hiroshima ruin" said the front page of the New York Times, a classic of disinformation and journalistic abdication, which the Australian reporter Wilfred Burchett put right with his scoop of the century. "I write this as a warning to the world," reported Burchett in the Daily Express, having reached Hiroshima after a perilous journey, the first correspondent to dare. He described hospital wards filled with people with no visible injuries but who were dying from what he called "an atomic plague". For telling this truth, his press accreditation was withdrawn, he was pilloried and smeared - and vindicated."

Warning To The World
Jan

Mountain climber
Okinawa, Japan
Sep 9, 2013 - 02:29pm PT
The video cameras may well show the physical aspects of the part of the accident they are filming. However, even the physical part of the accident may have been precipitated by something that happened before the cars were within range of the cameras or the witnesses (driver hits ice and bounces off of light post before hitting other car on camera, driver swerves to avoid drunk passed out in road and then hits other car before cameras etc). Both are subject to being incomplete accounts and the judgement as to who is at fault, could well depend on factors not filmed or witnessed.
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Sep 9, 2013 - 05:38pm PT

But let us say that tere's an accident - two cars crashing. Ten different witnesses describe the accident in 10 different ways (having different opinions about what happened and maybe even opinions about the motivations or intentions of the drivers). At the same time there's a black box in each car monitoring everything happening and being said in the two cars and there's four different videocameras filming the accident from four different angels giving us a clear picture of what has happened in space and time. My view would be that the black boxes and the videos would give us a quite good picture of what has really happened between the two cars and who has eventually broken the law or rules of driving on US roads. And that will be so even if the witnesses are describing the accident in very different ways.

Isn't this an arguement against man being a machine? If he were a machine, wouldn't they all see the exact same thing? And if we interrogate the 12 witnesses we find that the factual opinions are based from the emotional condition of said witness during time of crash.
And if we took one witness and put him in front of the crash 12 different times under 12 different emotional states. We would hear 12 different factual opinions
jgill

Boulder climber
Colorado
Sep 9, 2013 - 07:26pm PT
. . . but that which lies beyond the discursive altogether, that which we can never capture in the black box

The wonderfully illusive moment of enchantment that is always just out of reach of the discursive mind.

You spin a good tale, Large One.
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Sep 9, 2013 - 07:35pm PT
You spin a good tale, Large One.
--

I've never once asked anyone to believe me. Instead I invited ya'll to find out for your own selves. It's never worked in any other way to my knowledge. Otherwise we could just pass it all on like we do with facts and figures, and we cold avoid all those early morning sessions and dropping through the unconscious. Who wouldn't go for this easier variation - if it was only possible.

JL
Dr. F.

Boulder climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 9, 2013 - 07:59pm PT
So Largo, are you there?
you know the answers to these questions
but of course you can't verbalize them, because they are beyond words

and if only I tried harder, stuck it out longer, then I could have Made it to the level you have achieved

Will you say that this is true?
or that you have a lot of work to do, and the wild goose chase is still on?

and wanting it, or trying too hard, and hoping/expectations will never get you there. You have to give up and at the same time lose your self. And only some kind of psychotic partial brain destruction will get you there.
MikeL

climber
SANTA CLARA, CA
Sep 9, 2013 - 09:51pm PT
My view would be that the black boxes and the videos would give us a quite good picture of what has really happened between the two cars and who has eventually broken the law or rules of driving on US roads.

By those words, consensual agreement may well be reached about fault and liability.

But is "quite a good picture" what you really mean to talk about here? I get the sense that you believe that the cameras and black boxes will tell us "what really happened." If that is what you mean to convey, then I don't think you'll be able to do that, ever--only provisionally.

When you say, "what really happened," I think you're pointing to "what's really real." And that notion is what I wrote *about* in my earlier post just above. The search for "what really happened" is a sink hole of consternation objectively / empirically. You can never get enough data to achieve a conclusion in any final and ultimate sense. Any final conclusion would be fiat.

The scene description you wrote is itself an over-generalization. You've taken something ungraspable, undefinable, infinite, uncontextualizable, unmeasurable (yet unified), and rendered a generalization. You've characterized or bracketed a slice of reality.

It's easy to see how that happened. You gave us a description of what appears to be an event. It's an event because that's how you parsed it. Couldn't you imagine (as Jan ably points out) more to the event than what you wrote?

When anyone gets down into the details of "what really happened" at any time, on any level, we'll start to disagree. "I went to the store," "I had sex," "I taught students today" are all generalized descriptions, characterizations, renditions, models, abstractions, theories, etc. They all hide more than they reveal.

Consensus reality seems airtight only at the broadest and most generalized levels. In the thickets of finer detail "of what really happened," we will agree only about the finest or narrowest of details.

Consensus reality works because we've all bought into it--implicitly and explicitly. We make many successful predictions with it, but only within a relatively narrow band of detail, at singular points in time, given a great many assumptions. It's inviting and comfortable for us to do so. No one really has to think about it. Everything just appears to us without much doubt.

I would have you give a thought or reflect on how "everything just appears to us." That's emptiness; that's consciousness; that's experience; that's reality. It's not just the mind. Everything DOES just appear to us.
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Sep 9, 2013 - 10:49pm PT
Dr. F, I think you believe there is some tidy way to "know" what apparently lies beyond quantifying, but it might be instructive to look at what Mike is saying here, that there is no answers in the way you are hoping for, only the delusion that there is.

I really and truly believe, in all seriousness, that the only way you can get past endlessly circling in your mind about all of this is to do some little study on how discursive reasoning actually works, because that's what you are doing, just grinding on the same points like Fruity grinds on Abrahamic religion.

Subjective adventures do not provide you the facts and figures that science has yet to discover, but introduces you to a dimension that discursive reasoning can not grasp. At all. The problem is, so long as you don't know you are captive to that mind, you will never suspect it has you heart and soul, so anything that does not answer what your mind is asking is jibbering. And so it seems from that perspective. But the problem is not the esoteric, but your thinking that the only alternative is some other form of thinking, a dead mind limbo land, and "God." But none of these are so, Craig.

JL
Dr. F.

Boulder climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 9, 2013 - 10:52pm PT
So it's a wild goose chase for you guys forever.
a never ending not knowing or achieving any sort of goal
kind of like a drug addict that just needs more to get there, but never does

and the confusion that you two seem to be under, can it be good for your well being?
I'm worried.

I really and truly believe, in all seriousness, that the only way you can get past endlessly circling in your mind about all of this is to do some little study on how discursive reasoning actually works,
What if I'm already past this, how would you know if I am or not
I say I'm way past it all, and thank goodness
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Sep 9, 2013 - 11:18pm PT
So it's a wild goose chase for you guys forever.
-

Craig, understand this, from one friend to another.

It is only a wild goose chase when a person chases the "goose" as you have defined it. You'll NEVER find that. So give up all chasing and see what happens. No God, no beliefs, no concentration, no mantra, no thinking, no wampum, no faith is needed. Give up trying to DO anything. Totally. Let yourself die. And see where you end up.

It won't be easy but it is doable. Forget the questions. Flip the paradigm and listen. It is the opposite of dealing with material reality.

JL

Dr. F.

Boulder climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 9, 2013 - 11:24pm PT
Give up trying to DO anything. Totally. Let yourself die. And see where you end up.

and then you will have some kind of mental breakdown, lose part of your mind, and come out the other side, like a PTSD survivor. Doesn't sound like any answer to me, sounds more like hell.

No one can give up, that's why it is a wild goose chase,
neither you or MikeL. will ever give up trying or let themselves die, fact
why? because it will always with you, no matter how hard you try to delude yourself you are not trying.
jstan

climber
Sep 9, 2013 - 11:25pm PT
I am going to imitate Base104 here. (Someone always worth imitating, I think.)

A year or two ago I claimed John is on a permanent "wild goose chase." So there.

You see John is an experiential writer. He is attempting to convey his experience in the moment
to others. There is no way to gauge success or failure in this, as no two experiences are the same. Frankly, it is way for someone living in their head, to make what is there seem more than what it actually is. Random action potentials.

And he cannot define what he means by the words he uses. Because when he tries to pin down the words he uses, they no longer match his experience.

His writing is good for the use for which it is intended. Readers just get on board and go for a ride. The ride is fun but it goes nowhere. That's OK. Then we get off and try to remember what we were doing. Back to work.

Messages 15901 - 15920 of total 22349 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