Politics, God and Religion vs. Science

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 15921 - 15940 of total 23233 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Sep 10, 2013 - 12:04am PT
Jstan, what I am putting down here has nothing to do with my writing. And instead of lobbing wild guesses my way, you might try and ask a few questions. One of the standard practices of Zen is to place your awareness on your hara, a tige below your stomach, so you can get OUT of you head.

But I won't belabor the point. What Craig just said is even more evidence that he is totally guessing about what he dosen't know - that meditation will trigger "some kind of mental breakdown," that you will "lose part of your mind, and come out the other side, like a PTSD survivor." How does Craig know that? He does not, and if he was remotely honest about it, he would say as much.

What I have said most recently is that (perhaps) the only worm hole into this is to look at the actual mechanics of how we focus and consequently, how we discursively get hold of any person, place or thing. That is the only way I know to avoid all the boohooing that experiential adventures cannot be broken down into discursive data streams.

JL
jgill

Boulder climber
Colorado
Sep 10, 2013 - 12:49am PT
. . . avoid all the boohooing . . .


Elegant . . . damn, you've got us pegged!


;>)
QITNL

climber
Sep 10, 2013 - 01:57am PT
Mr. Largo, you are a really good writer. Top notch, I mean it. But if you want to go under the surface, sometimes words get in the way. Language is fairly primary to your discussion here. Without language, there would be no religion; politics and science would be fairly rudimentary. Do ducks use science to migrate? It depends upon your definition of science, they don't care.

Early in this discussion, I brought up Foucault, who you quickly shot down as an acid tripper and way homo. Sounds like a climber, I thought, so I figured I should step away.

I did have somewhere I wanted to go; he was a linguist, too. We spent an entire semester tracing a single obsolete Greek word. Once you started peeling back the layers, the ideas behind the ideas began to emerge. You can't rewind beyond the advent of language; in the study of human concepts, that's as far as you can go.

That was the humble suggestion I wished to share with you: if you want to understand consciousness, start with syneidos. Find the moments when the concept was being transfered into language for the first time. It might not provide you with your answer, but you get an idea of what folks were thinking before dialectic and rhetoric got in the way. Before the term was accepted into common parlance and used to build bigger things.

Perhaps you have done this already or don't find it particularly interesting. I just wanted to finish my thought, that's all. Cheers.
Ward Trotter

Trad climber
Sep 10, 2013 - 02:20am PT
Mr. Largo, you are a really good writer.

Now lets not go overboard for crying out loud. LOL
QITNL

climber
Sep 10, 2013 - 02:47am PT
It's a matter of taste, I suppose, but he's a real good writer. I particularly like his writing when he's not thinking about it too much. You can tell. That's a real skill. His anchor books alone contain some great story-telling and he gets the idea across. That isn't easy.

Am I playing up to him? Hell, no. We probably fundamentally disagree across the board. John Searle is a turd. But you don't have to be a dick all the time, sometimes it's good to pay credit where credit is due.

Here's some good writing, maybe you never seen good writing:



How go home and get your frickin shinebox, Ward.
Ward Trotter

Trad climber
Sep 10, 2013 - 03:36am PT
How go home and get your fickin shinebox, Ward.

Take it easy , it was meant in humorous good spirits. I like Largo's writing , primarily because its several cuts above the garden variety writing usually present on this site. But when you say "really good writing " I don't normally think of someone noodling out anecdotes in a technical manual on climbing anchors, however competently transcripted. I think of Shakespeare, or Faulkner, or James Joyce or Kafka.
To each his own I guess.
QITNL

climber
Sep 10, 2013 - 03:38am PT
Oh, I was just kidding, too. Busting your balls, you know? It was just that Homer picture, didn't mean to go all Manchurian Candidate on you. If you don't have the clip memorized, you'd have to watch it all the way through.

There's all sorts of good writing, you list a bunch of good writers, I gave you some dialogue. I doubt Largo considers his anchor book at that level. But what's good writing? Is it the understanding and consciousness it transmits, or expert use of the tool? To reach the former, you might need to dig down beneath thousands of years of discarded tools.
Ward Trotter

Trad climber
Sep 10, 2013 - 03:58am PT
But what's good writing? Is it the understanding and consciousness it transmits, or expert use of the tool?

Both. Take Shakespeare for instance. His writing is where technique, mastery, intelligence, and profundity come together in the form of exquisitely constructed dialog that keeps echoing down the centuries.
I generally agree with what you say as well.
QITNL

climber
Sep 10, 2013 - 04:26am PT
Yeah - we're cool. Shakespeare is a great example. It looks like gibberish to most of us now, but the way he wrapped ideas with words had never been done before. Whoever the hell he was, we'll never know.

That's my beef with Searle, he's all about the intentionality of the author, I'm like, are you freaking kidding me? There is so much more to be learned.

If you want to talk about English verse, start with the Simpsons and work back to Shakespeare. If you want to talk about sentience itself, you're gonna have to go a lot further back, toss all sorts of false crutches, reverse-ikea all sorts of language.

I'd rather climb mountains and keep my thoughts to myself.

When Largo gets back, he's gonna be pissed, I'm gonna hide in the car.
jstan

climber
Sep 10, 2013 - 04:52am PT
Speaking of Shakespeare, Google up Sir Ken Richardson's 2009 TED talk on schools and creativity. Went viral for good reasons. Interesting take on Shakespeare.
Jingy

climber
Somewhere out there
Sep 11, 2013 - 05:39pm PT
Because to hear it spoken is sometimes enough….

climbski2

Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
Sep 11, 2013 - 07:43pm PT
This is what it means to be an American.

jgill

Boulder climber
Colorado
Sep 11, 2013 - 07:53pm PT
Nice
jstan

climber
Sep 12, 2013 - 01:25am PT
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvJZQwy9dvE

Dan Dennett discusses five "good reasons for "believing" in god."

According to Dawkins, Dennett is a "scientific philosopher."
This is real philosophy. Right out of Socrates' playbook.

Very deep but very clear. Not murky. Definitely not murky.
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Sep 12, 2013 - 02:19am PT
This is real philosophy

Isn't everything that's real starts out as philosophy?
Definitely everything today, science, politics, economics, societics, etc, etc.
I'll even ask, couldn't the beginning of the universe been a philosophy?
MikeL

climber
SANTA CLARA, CA
Sep 12, 2013 - 11:46am PT
According to Dawkins, Dennett is a "scientific philosopher."
This is real philosophy. Right out of Socrates' playbook.
Very deep but very clear. Not murky. Definitely not murky.

I question whether you've read much of either.

Philosophy has invariably been murky. That is its nature. Philosophers are looking for and to articulate the Truth, Beauty, and the Good. Not one of those is amenable to easy definition. On the other hand, if you think you can say what any of those are, please do so here. The presentations of philosophers tend to be long, laborious, and difficult to get through. That includes Mr. Dennett and Mr. Dawkins own works, even on YouTube. Socrates is no easy read, either.

Science and its findings is hardly clear, clean, and tractable. To most naive or novice learners, it might look so. Pick out a scientific journal of your choosing and read the articles in an issue. I'll let that experience provide your own evaluations, and I'd like very much to hear what they would be.

What *appears* to be clear and obvious are labels, categories, models, frameworks, abstractions at the most generalized level of understanding. Usually those are presented with the words, ". . . everyone knows that . . . ."

What IS deep, not murky--very clear--is experience. You have it no matter where you go, what you do, or who you are. You need no tools, no theories, no teaching, no aids, and no one to tell you how to do it.

Science and philosophy are only trying to help you see what is right in front of you. But they are very poor, incomplete, and biased methods and approaches. They breed the illusion that They Are Real, while experience is not. It's funny, really.
Ward Trotter

Trad climber
Sep 12, 2013 - 12:59pm PT
What IS deep, not murky--very clear--is experience. You have it no matter where you go, what you do, or who you are. You need no tools, no theories, no teaching, no aids, and no one to tell you how to do it.

This is an ideal concept that excludes a significant portion of the world that humans actually find themselves in and is about as useful as a grocery bag without groceries.
In order to catapult the primacy of subjective experience into a preferred mainstay of truth we have to ignore both the central predicament and defining nature of human life---those things we share in our collective world-- our civilization, our technologies, our philosophies, our mutual survival as a social species.

Subjective experience , experience in general, is not clear and magically cleansed of murkiness--- quite the contrary. Solitary human experience is intrinsically replete with misunderstanding, maladjustments ,self-deception, egoism, and delusion. A source of much grief. These maladies are sometimes superimposed by others upon the individual, but many are self-originating and seem to be inherent in the natural organic condition of human brain functioning.
Marlow

Sport climber
OSLO
Sep 12, 2013 - 01:11pm PT
Mentioned by jstan and posted before, but well worth a repetition - Sir Ken Robinson: Do schools kill creativity?



Ralph Richardson - Russell Harty TV Show

Ward Trotter

Trad climber
Sep 12, 2013 - 01:56pm PT
Sir Ken is a very funny man with wonderful ideas. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Unfortunately his prescriptions for education are way too idealistic for the contemporary world and the foreseeable future.
Education will continue to be driven primarily by draconian economic competition and not the restrained Utopianism of educators in a few western democracies currently with the money to blow on creativity agendas.
Sad but true.
MH2

climber
Sep 12, 2013 - 02:04pm PT
Sort of what Ward says. We are social animals. Science and philosophy are community endeavors with the good and bad that go with that. From when you are born and perhaps even before, your subjective world is continually modified by trials and errors in the objective world and you start forming and testing hypotheses. If you don't learn you are at a disadvantage and your fellow humans can steer you wrong, but they are more likely to save you a lot of time, effort, and risk by teaching you what has already been learned.
Messages 15921 - 15940 of total 23233 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