Politics, God and Religion vs. Science

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 16901 - 16920 of total 22344 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
WBraun

climber
Nov 1, 2013 - 08:54pm PT
FortMentäl tries to come off all smart and intellectual and all.

We've seen so many of these types.

Then they get out in the real world and they're fuking useless running mouths with no real time improvising skills.

They're just blabbering mouths and don't know which end of the hammer to hold ......
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Nov 1, 2013 - 10:19pm PT
And both branches are so laden with jargon so as to be nigh unintelligible to any but devoted practitioners. The great danger with this – a danger that might also be threatening quantum physics today – is that in order to engage in the debate at all, one must be so immersed in the frame of reference, the jargon, and perspective of the day that it becomes virtually impossible to break free and offer any genuine alternatives.



What if the above was talking about physics, and you simply swapped out "measurements" for "jargon." As though in any field, a layman has a chance to simply wrangle all the top end material without special study. The person who wrote that rant never studied logic, which is basically incomprehensible without some serious buckling down. But the language and modlaities have informed computer programming from the start. I don't much care for it, but tossing it away because it has it's own jargon is something we can accuse any field of doing.

That much said, I do agree with the statement: "the vast majority of contemporary analytic philosophy is pointless, and the vast majority of contemporary continental philosophy is meaningless."

That's because philosophy should never have gotten suckered into trying to be increasingly analytic, in order to be more "scientific." You end up doing pointless and meaningless work every time.

JL
MikeL

climber
SANTA CLARA, CA
Nov 1, 2013 - 10:53pm PT
I agree with Largo above. No argument there.


Everything that I wrote above and have written--and most everything that Largo keeps harping on--is to do your own thinking and pay attention to your own experiences. No cutting and pasting, no regurgitating others' ideas, no repeating tired conventional consensual thinking.

I'm fully aware that it's not easy to plumb your own feelings, to directly observe only what's happening right in front of you, to say only what you know for yourself. It takes discipline, critical thinking, and most significantly, brutal honesty. But without those three, you float on the musings and theories of others.

I might be wrong, but it seems to me that most people cannot admit (it is beyond them) that there are things that they do not know and cannot know through a rational, mental framework. What could be beyond rationality? What could be beyond space and time? What could be beyond imagination? What could be beyond concepts? What could be beyond consciousness? What could being be beyond the central point of reference (yourself)? What could be beyond materiality?

People are victims of their education, their interpretations, and what other people have told them. It's all that they can see BECAUSE it's what they've unconsciously limited themselves to. Beyond what they believe their capabilities to be (innately or even conceptually) they cannot imagine. (Indeed, no one can; BUT if people were to understand that, then possibilities can open up for them.) But saying that they do not and cannot know does not even appear to be a possibility for them. There is no openness to them. They're in a box. Their space of being is limited. The extent to which they rely upon definitions, concepts, frameworks, and labels and mental, rational weltanschauungs cuts them off from a host of possibilities.

One of the wonderful things about postmodernism, in comparison to typical science as it is practiced, is that postmodernism is full of fun, humor, whimsy, and wit. Other than being disdainful of what they see as dull incrementalism, postmodernists tend to be as playful as puppies--and challengers of the status-quo.

Are people aware of what's going on in the world today?? What do you see as working? Show me how mental rational viewpoints (and science) is making the world a better place to be.

There are some compelling reasons to finding radically different views of being.

I suspect that maybe things aren't bad enough yet. It's like our government. Yeah, it's terrible, and it's not working, but it's apparently not so bad that we're really ready do anything about it.

It's the same way with mental, rational consciousness. Although we continue to make some headway with it disciplinarily, here and there, in the big scheme of things, it's run out of juice. It's no longer truly productive. The amount of effort and commitment we put into it is no longer paying out for our growth. It's now a deficient technology because we've pushed it too far; we expect too much out of it. It's causing more problems than it's solving.

It's time to move on--and that will mean something really different. Something not incremental. A new way of being. Something that will recognize and assimilate rationality, but will not allow rationality to dominate other means of being (like myth, like emotions, like nature, like instinct).

But, hey: climbing is dangerous. Climb at your own risk.
Jingy

climber
Somewhere out there
Nov 1, 2013 - 11:28pm PT



 Food for thought, anyone?...
jgill

Boulder climber
Colorado
Nov 1, 2013 - 11:31pm PT
This feels a little like drifting into the recent movie, The Master, roughly based on the practices of L. Ron Hubbard and the effects these have on a veteran lost and wandering in post WWII America. An excellent film, full of "experiential" stuff and the irrational belief that a certain spiritual discipline is the only one leading to "truth."
MH2

climber
Nov 2, 2013 - 12:47am PT
What could be beyond rationality? What could be beyond space and time? What could be beyond imagination? What could be beyond concepts? What could be beyond consciousness? What could being be beyond the central point of reference (yourself)? What could be beyond materiality?


Religion
jstan

climber
Nov 2, 2013 - 02:48am PT
This is off topic but I can't resist.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6CtStbaYU0

At the end of this Bill Maher episode you will here what two scientists have to say about whores. My guess is this is the only time that subject has arisen in the "trade".


What could be beyond rationality? What could be beyond space and time? What could be beyond imagination? What could be beyond concepts? What could be beyond consciousness? What could being be beyond the central point of reference (yourself)? What could be beyond materiality?

Reading SciAm while on the can?
MikeL

climber
SANTA CLARA, CA
Nov 2, 2013 - 10:21am PT
^^^^^^^^^
Non-answers. Pay attention. Beyond rationality, space, time, imagination, concepts, consciousness, yourself as a central reference point . . . religion nor any article in science falls outside of those. Think about it. There is no consciousness outside of consciousness. There is no imagination outside of imagination. There are no concepts outside of concepts. Yada yada. (It's straightforward logic.)

the irrational belief that a certain spiritual discipline is the only one leading to "truth."

Jgill, there is more than irrationality and rationality. Unless you see it in everything and everywhere (which I don't think you do), spiritualism is not the only alternative or possibility to rationality. There is also non-rationality (having nothing to do with rationality or irrationality) and there is "arationality," which I will say is an inclusion of all three. Science is rational, religion is irrational, dreams are non-rational, and entertaining all simultaneously could be considered arational.

Again, this evidences the problem of tried and true labels. They are the paint that puts a person into a corner with no escape. That's what our use of concepts do to us. They close off possibilities that go beyond how we think things must be. "It's either heads, or tails"; "it's either light or dark"; "organizations are either centralized or decentralized"; "people are either motivated intrinsically or extrinsically"; "authority must be commensurate with responsibility"; "you are a liberal"; "alcoholism is a disease". But some of these you have doubts about. You know that at times there can be both, and there can be neither (for neither is properly applicable).

FM criticized postmodern ideas as silly nothings, . . . "frame[s] of reference . . . jargon, and perspective[s] of the day that [makes] it . . . virtually impossible to break free and offer any genuine alternatives." I'd argue he's got it backwards. Modernism has defined reality so naively and tightly into independent discrete objects that people can't see any big picture. Each object can only be discussed within its own field with its own terminology. But, reality is just not like that.

We live fragmented lives because we live in fragmented worlds. We live in fragmented worlds because that's how we see them. What we see them to be is what we believe them to be. It's indicative of a vicious cycle of delusion.

Look, John, just consider the "experiential stuff" data. But here's the rub: you don't have to make anything of it. Just see it fully. I think if you do, you'll find there is no room for anything else. It's that full.

And, good morning to everyone. It looks like it's going to be a great day today
Randisi

Social climber
Dalian, Liaoning
Nov 2, 2013 - 10:38am PT
We live fragmented lives because we live in fragmented worlds.

Maybe the world is fragmented.

Maybe holism is also a conceit.

Maybe neither is correct by itself.
Jan

Mountain climber
Colorado, Nepal & Okinawa
Nov 2, 2013 - 01:00pm PT
the irrational belief that a certain spiritual discipline is the only one leading to "truth.

The discipline of Anthropology at least says that the truth we have discovered is that there is no one truth with human beings, only occasional declarations by one group or another that they have found the truth.Variety and diversity beyond any one person's imagination actually exist in the world of human social institutions and interactions.


Modernism has defined reality so naively and tightly into independent discrete objects that people can't see any big picture.

Certainly one of the charms of a premodern society is that it has a cohesive view of the world held together in part, by a sense of the magical relationship of the various elements.

I wonder if it isn't the curse of large nation states that they can find no unity otherwise, because of the human social and cultural diversity within their borders, and so fall back on a belief in technology and the predictability of the physical world. The growth of bureaucracy in modern nation states also seems an attempt to unite the disparate parts of a fragmented world into some sort of predictable reality.

Personally I find the results of too much technology and bureaucracy to be utterly stifling to the human spirit. The technicians and bureaucrats of course say that we need even more.
WBraun

climber
Nov 2, 2013 - 01:05pm PT
Truth is truth and can't be any different.

2+2 = 4

Is 2+2= 4 different to the Chinese?

Ed Hartouni -- "light is truth, therefore what we see through that instrument bends the truth..."

Jan

Mountain climber
Colorado, Nepal & Okinawa
Nov 2, 2013 - 01:45pm PT
2+2= 4 in any system. However there are different systems. Some use base ten as we do, others base 12, others base 20, and some combine, for political and cultural purposes more than one system.

If you ever learn to count in French you will know that up through 60, the base is ten and after that, twenty. Seventy is soixante dix (sixty plus ten), eighty is quatre vingt (four twenties)and ninety is quatre vingt dix (four twentys plus ten), ninety nine is quatre vingt dix neuf (four twenties plus nineteen). The reason for this? The Latins counted by base ten and the Celts by base twenty, and the final result was a compromise.

Japanese counting is even more complicated as they use their indigenous system for counting people, animals, and objects and the Chinese system for counting money. The number two is ni when counting money, but two orders of rice are futatsu. Not to mention that the number 4 is shi, except that no one uses it because it is also the word for death so they use yon instead.

All buildings in the world with 13 floors have 13 floors, but not necessarily a floor that is labeled 13. Often in the West they skip from 12 to 14. In Japan they often skip the 4th floor and go from 3 to 5. Flowers and dishes in the West come as half or full dozens. In Japan they come as sets of 3, 5 (the most common) or 10 (two fives).

And the most fun of all, was arguing with elderly British at the time they joined the European Union, that it would be easier to have money based on ten rather than twelve. Many of them resolutely maintained that it was easier to calculate 12 shillings to a pound than it would ever be to count ten shillings to a pound, all because they had gotten used to a system based on the length of a past king's foot which was divided into twelve equal inches and then 12 divisions was transferred to the money. There's mathematical truth, there's the truth most people accept as true, and then there are the outlying cultures who don't see it that way.
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Nov 2, 2013 - 02:08pm PT
What could be beyond rationality? What could be beyond space and time? What could be beyond imagination? What could be beyond concepts? What could be beyond consciousness? What could being be beyond the central point of reference (yourself)? What could be beyond materiality?


Religion


What IS religion, as you see it. And what do you understand the difference to be between religion and spirituality.

Though it has been pointed out many times, ever perspective has limitations, but only the discursive/evaluating mind considers itself the True Light per reality, all else being - as John S. believes - so much fluff to be read on the shitter as we wait to get back to the meaningful business of measuring. Oh brother . . .

JL
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Nov 2, 2013 - 02:10pm PT
"It's either heads, or tails"; "it's either light or dark"

This is what is known as a false dichotomy, and MikeL is correct that it is logically moot. You see people use this in arguments all of the time.

"You are either with us, or you are with the terrorists." I've heard that one since that whole NSA leak happened.

Quite often answers are not black and white, even in science. There is often a spectrum of answers which satisfy the hypothesis. Kind of like high blood pressure.

The worst is the ad hominem attack, where you attack the arguer rather than the argument. We see this constantly in political chatter. After you learn to recognize it, you will see that it has no meaning and is logically null, like the false dichotomy.

If you want to see ad hominem attacks turned up to 11, go to the climate change thread and read The Chief's posts. He is one gigantic ad hominem factory.
MH2

climber
Nov 2, 2013 - 02:54pm PT
So I guess you would say that there is no answer outside of non-answers, MikeL? For your questions?
manemachen

Sport climber
Pinedale, Wyoming
Nov 2, 2013 - 03:41pm PT
Since you asked, I believe in Tequila- no, really..Tequila..(only Silver, no Jose crap).. Tequila keeps me outta fist fights and giving a crap about someones opinions..best is drinking tequila while outside-well, almost everything is better when done outside..this is the antidote for politics & religion..and I apply this as often as possible-surviving everything has given me permission..
Ward Trotter

Trad climber
Nov 2, 2013 - 04:13pm PT
I wonder if it isn't the curse of large nation states that they can find no unity otherwise, because of the human social and cultural diversity within their borders, and so fall back on a belief in technology and the predictability of the physical world. The growth of bureaucracy in modern nation states also seems an attempt to unite the disparate parts of a fragmented world into some sort of predictable reality.

The lack of unity is not so much precipitated by social and cultural diversity as by changing social norms and ideologies that have come to characterize modern western cultures.
In the not so recent past ,immigrants settling in the US were expected to acclimatize to the reigning cultural environment. By and large these immigrants had left behind the old country and had become completely assimilated into the new adopted order by the second generation.

For a myriads of reasons these old requirements have been abandoned. There is no real assimilation of this sort, and therefore the west, in general, seems to be in the process of transferring the still required cultural identity and uniformity over to corporate structures--- such as massive centralized government.--- and those entities that march in lockstep and play ball with it and reflect its core organizational weltanshauung---such as the major large corporations ,unions, banks, and regional economic super structures .(EU)

In the old early post-Bolshevik era of the Soviet Union , Lenin , and later Stalin, were faced with this general situation somewhat in reverse.
They were attempting to institute total state control based upon an enforced structural unity over a vast region of divergent cultures and ethnic enclaves. It wasn't enough that the subject peoples pay serf-like confiscatory taxes , as they had under the Czars, but they were soon required to think ,act , and behave in a way that pleased the local Kommisars, or be executed on the spot or shipped off to the Gulag.

The Communist tyrants realized very early on that the nation they were building required a uniform , overriding authority based upon a strong centralized political entity.
In order for this totalitarian structure to survive it must stamp out all competitors to the throne of unification and the State.
Therefore religion , and all contrary ideologies, political or not, were declared illegal, and draconian measures were accordingly unleashed to repress all competition to the state. This in part was the central aspect of what we now know as " Stalinism"

Mao was also faced with the same challenging situation, albeit in a different form. His primary foe was not so much strong ethnic and religious discontinuities --- but his chief enemy was The Past, in general.
The Cultural Revolution ,set loose by Mao and his deranged coterie, took many extreme forms, but if it were to be summarized at all it could be called : a war on the past by a desperately fanatical group of megalomaniacal political gangs who came to see traditional Chinese culture as an enemy of the State.

I guess what I am trying to say in a rambling way as a response to Jan's statement:

they can find no unity otherwise, because of the human social and cultural diversity within their borders, and so fall back on a belief in technology and the predictability of the physical world. The growth of bureaucracy in modern nation states also seems an attempt to unite the disparate parts of a fragmented world into some sort of predictable reality

The last sentence illuminates more of what history has taught us, and offers the opportunity to unify several other points:
Ideologies, such as a belief in science and technology, that are not attached to massive political crusades--- crusades usually in the form of modern totalitarian/ socialistic states or movements---- stand very little chance in the monumental task of enforcing meaningful, inclusive uniformity in contemporary democratic nation states threatened by encroaching disunity.
An under-weened evangelical belief in technology, on its own ,normally wouldn't unify a sophomore biology class--- if it were not consequently attached to a centralized government structure that forces the precepts of technology and technological thinking,per se, down people's throats.

Remember, the totalitarian states that I profiled above were extremely fond of characterizing the ultimate philosophic underpinnings of their efforts as " scientific materialism" (in the old Marxist jargon) and their religion was avowedly and officially atheistic.




go-B

climber
Hebrews 1:3
Nov 2, 2013 - 05:54pm PT
photo not found
Missing photo ID#328545
jgill

Boulder climber
Colorado
Nov 2, 2013 - 06:26pm PT
It's time to move on--and that will mean something really different. Something not incremental. A new way of being (MikeL)


Fess up, Mike . . . are you John Titor?


;>)
Ward Trotter

Trad climber
Nov 2, 2013 - 07:07pm PT
Credit: Ward Trotter

Titor's time machine patent.
Messages 16901 - 16920 of total 22344 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