Politics, God and Religion vs. Science

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 16941 - 16960 of total 23481 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
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 For telling this truth, his press accreditation was withdrawn, he was pilloried and smeared - and vindicated."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.

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.
Messages 16941 - 16960 of total 23481 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