You Keep Saying This....

[NotBlinded]

You have ideas, your ideas move into form and function by your intention.

I think this is the concept of cause, medium and effect. The thought (cause) produces our action (medium) which results in the outcome of that thought (effect). Should I dare say 'trinity'?

 

I also revere that which I cannot conceive because I understand that it exists. Can there be visible things without the invisible for contrast? I may never see, or comprehend, the invisible, but it is there.

 

Just a little input from me for what it's worth.

[Asimov]

thats the whole topic of discussion is it not? what i ment by those two terms?

 

Yea, but giving stock definitions without explanation is about as meaningful as having sex with a hooker.

whats there to explain?

 

without end. exists in and around everything and beyond without end

 

incomprehensible... well why dont you try comprehending infinity?

 

 

Ok, there are an infinite set of numbers. There is also an minus infinite set of numbers.

 

I can comprehend this.

[Ouroboros]

There are also infinitesimal numbers, a number that exists but is infinite small.

 

And between 1 and 2 there are infinite sets of infinite series of numbers, 1.111..., 1.1212..., 1.222..., 1.333..., ...

 

So numbers aren't only infinite in series, but there are infinite number of series, and infinite ways of describing the series.

 

There are also infinite sets that are paradoxical.

[Soule]

thats the whole topic of discussion is it not? what i ment by those two terms?

 

Yea, but giving stock definitions without explanation is about as meaningful as having sex with a hooker.

whats there to explain?

 

without end. exists in and around everything and beyond without end

 

incomprehensible... well why dont you try comprehending infinity?

 

 

Ok, there are an infinite set of numbers. There is also an minus infinite set of numbers.

 

I can comprehend this.

 

no not comprehend the fact that there is an infinite set of numbers, comprehend infinity itself. imagine infinity. picture it in your mind.

[Asimov]

“Irrational” is not always a bad thing. There may never be a reason to think otherwise about these things – but should that stop the human mind (and spirit) from searching? If one stopped searching for answers just because “to think otherwise when there’s not reason to do so” then where would humanity be?

 

Of course it is always a bad thing, reason is our only method of obtaining knowledge and identifying with reality.

 

[*]Sometimes I use the word “God” because it forces people to get out of their boxes and stop looking at these things with pre-conceived notions about what “God” is, or should be.

 

Don't you do that yourself? You have a pre-conceived notion about what God is.

 

Asimov, the very act of living is intention. We get up in the morning, we move through the day, and our day is an “expression” of who we are. Our days, our lives look different from other people’s days and lives because of the way we move from “pure potential” or “pure possibility” into “being”.

 

What does "pure potential" mean? I don't see how this answers my question.

 

I’m making a very loose connection here – when I think of God, I do not think of some being outside or separate from creation. But, you asked what that description meant, and this is the closest I can get.

 

So you think God is the universe, and that the universe is growing and living.

 

Just because I cannot find the words to express what I experience of the universe, does not mean I have “no idea about” that which I revere. There are many ways to “know” things, Asimov. We are talking about infinity here. Whether one views it as intentional, or not, we are talking about something that cannot be grasped in words.

 

There is only one way to know things, Open Minded. You're taking a human created abstract (infinity), and trying to apply it to reality. It doesn't exactly work.

 

Scientists revere it and express it with their math. I revere it and express it with as few words as possible – that is part of my reverence - that is part of my "wonder" and "awe".

 

Scientists also have a rule that their calculations involving infinity must end up with a practical result that applies to reality.

 

no not comprehend the fact that there is an infinite set of numbers, comprehend infinity itself. imagine infinity. picture it in your mind.

 

Infinity in what? Infinity is a quality or condition.

[Abiyoyo]

[

Why must he have the following attributes? Because they are necessary attributes as a maximal being.

 

Thats the answer. I love interacting with you Asimov. You make me think deeper. i always have to smoke afterward

 

 

Anyhow. If this ultimate all knowing, powerful, present everywhere presence or constant is just that; then applied a framework of attributes, even in good structure, is moot. Think deep here. Really, its not the application and concensus of God to be this ultimate presence, but the best logical perspective of this presence in the human mind, in which is finite.

 

So, in that. The entire thought or analysis of this ultimate presence is based in a finite perspective. Which makes the entire process irrelevant and vain.

 

Make sense?

[Antlerman]

“Irrational” is not always a bad thing. There may never be a reason to think otherwise about these things – but should that stop the human mind (and spirit) from searching? If one stopped searching for answers just because “to think otherwise when there’s not reason to do so” then where would humanity be?

 

Of course it is always a bad thing, reason is our only method of obtaining knowledge and identifying with reality.

Asimov, I remember not pursing this discussion long ago when you had started the topic on epistemology. I had briefly asked “what about epistemological mysticism?” You were unaware of what that was. I never pursued getting into it at that time.

 

I disagree with your statement that the only method of obtaining knowledge and identifying with reality is reason.

 

Do you relate to people you love through rational, systematic, logical explanations that you can wrap your mind around intellectually, or do you just respond with feelings? Most human beings respond to things emotionally. That response has meaning to you emotionally, and you consequently gain knowledge through this non-rational means. You know that you feel love. There are impressions of that indivual that you relate to on an emotional level. That constitues "knowledge".

 

I would not use the word “irrational” as OM did above, but rather I use non-rational. Irrational to me describes taking something that is rational and going against the grain of it, ignoring or denying the validity of the rational aspects of it. Not all things in the world however are rational. Is joy?

 

Think in terms of art. When you look at art, are your “thoughts” merely on the mechanics of how these lines and colors work together in such a way as to evoke some sort of chemical response in your biological vehicle that houses your thinking organ? Or do you respond with “non-rational” thought and gain a knowledge of things in this world that have meaning to you? For me I try to "understand" it with both rational and emotional thoughts, which helps expand me as a whole person to gain knowledge of what being a human being means.

 

You seem to see that mythology and other non-rational methodologies have no value because they are “irrational”, but I would argue they are merely vehicles like art, music, and romance to gain “non-rational” thought or “knowledge”. Is knowledge gained through these means of no value because it cannot be dissected with the scalpel of rationality? In my opinion, to not experience life non-rationaly is to be as blocked from something that makes us a human being, as much as those who deny rational thought in their “irrational” approach to life. I guess I would say to deny experience of life non-rationally is itself a form of “irrationality”.

[NotBlinded]

Antlerman...well...what can I say? If I wore a hat, I would take it off to you!

[Open_Minded]

NotBlinded ... I agree with what you said about "the trinity". In fact I brought this up myself in another thread - one of the first threads I was ever involved in. As I've said before .... ILWYT

 

Check out this link: http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?s=&a...st&p=108991

the concept of trinity is very real to me, it presents itself in nature, in life in general. As I experience the trinity (not as the fundamentalists choose to literalize it) the trinity is within all of life, all of creation.

 

How to explain this. It might help you to put this all in context if you know that I practice contemplative Christianity (this is the meditative branch of Christianity). I have also explored the eastern mystic traditions. But they never fit. In a concrete way I suppose I could say I call myself a Christian because the contemplative path of Christianity just “fits” better. I was raised Christian, it is easier for me to get my head around the literature and writings.

 

But, there is more… as I’ve said the concept of the trinity is very real to me. For me – subjectively – I see the trinity metaphysically defined in the first verses of John’s gospel. I won’t quote them all here, but John 1:14 is immediately applicable, “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us”.

 

The three words “Word became flesh” are a metaphysical way of looking at the Trinity. The “WORD” represents the “Father”, the original idea, the original mind, the first thought. “Became” metaphysically speaking is the first thought in action, energy (or the Sacred Spirit) proceeding out from the first thought. And “Flesh” metaphysically speaking is the manifested result of the first thought. “Flesh” could not happen if energy had not proceeded out from the first thought, the first Word.

 

Think about when an artist creates something. First – before anything – the artist has to have the idea. Or the first thought. Second – the idea must be acted upon – the artist takes a canvas and paint and expends energy (or the sacred spirit). Third – because the artist had the thought and because the artist expended energy from the thought – there is an end product, a painting (or the manifested result of the first thought). This whole process is trinitarian in the sense that the painting would never be without the original thought and the energy which proceeded out from that thought in order to produce a painting.

 

In short – when I look at creation – I see this dynamic in play. I can not work in my garden, walk in the woods, hold an infant and not see that first, before anything else there was an idea. (Not an idea in the limited sense that we humans think of) But a first intention, a first awareness that there could be something more. And then, there was spirit (energy) proceeding out from this first intention. Because that energy was expended we have life, glorious life. We have creation. I see this dynamic at play in science, and I accept that there are those who study science and do not see it. I see this dynamic at play in math, and I accept that there are those who study math and do not see it. I see this dynamic at play in the arts, and I accept that there are those who study the arts and do not see it.

 

And I recognize the validity of a dynamic that came to play earlier in this thread when Mythra, rightfully reminded me that in referring to others search for the truth I must be careful. So teasingly I rephrased my original statement to the following:

 

“Irrational” is not always a bad thing. There may never be a reason to think otherwise about these things – but should that stop the human mind (and spirit) from searching? If one stopped searching for answers just because “to think otherwise when there’s not reason to do so” then where would humanity be?

 

Of course it is always a bad thing, reason is our only method of obtaining knowledge and identifying with reality.

 

Asimov ... I agree completely with Antlerman (thanks Antlerman). And you're right I should have used the word non-rational.

 

But, anyway to extend what Antlerman was saying and add in my own thoughts.

 

Where would science be without intuition?

 

Do you really think the first people who said that the earth was flat were considered "rational"?

 

Or how about those that tried to build an airplane, did the people in their cultures consider them "rational"?

 

Look at all the advances made in medicine, in science, in engineering - do you really believe that the first people who considered the possibility of something new were considered "rational". Most likely a good chunk of them were not only considered irrational but also just plain crazy (as in send them to the looney bin crazy).

 

Advances come in science, in engineering, in medicine - across the whole of humanity - because people use other ways of knowing - in addition to and along side of - rational thinking.

 

 

[*]Sometimes I use the word “God” because it forces people to get out of their boxes and stop looking at these things with pre-conceived notions about what “God” is, or should be.

Don't you do that yourself? You have a pre-conceived notion about what God is.

Yep - I do - we all do. The difference is some of us recognize that we are operating off of pre-conceived notions and specific world-views and some of don't. Those of us who recognize our biases make conscious effort to expose ourselves to people with different points of view. That is why I like this board. It's full of people who recognize this trait within themselves and who are willing to participate in discussions with people different from themselves.

 

I’m making a very loose connection here – when I think of God, I do not think of some being outside or separate from creation. But, you asked what that description meant, and this is the closest I can get.

So you think God is the universe, and that the universe is growing and living.

I think the universe is growing and living - yes. I do not think - though - that the universe will experience death (as in that is the final - the end of it all - death). I think the universe is growing and living and always in the process of rebirthing and recreating.

 

I don't know if I think GOD IS the Universe, but I do think God is within - throughout and beyond all of creation (beyond in the sense that to me there is unmanifested thought before there is manifested creation - back to the whole Trinity thing - see my response to NotBlinded above).

 

Just because I cannot find the words to express what I experience of the universe, does not mean I have “no idea about” that which I revere. There are many ways to “know” things, Asimov. We are talking about infinity here. Whether one views it as intentional, or not, we are talking about something that cannot be grasped in words.

There is only one way to know things, Open Minded. You're taking a human created abstract (infinity), and trying to apply it to reality. It doesn't exactly work.

 

About the "only one way to know things" - Antlerman did a wonderful job answering that question. My additional comments about intuitive knowing would be the only thing I'd add.

 

About "infinity" being a human created abstract .... That's a whole other discussion. So.... you don't believe in "infinity" - it's all just within human thought processes?????

[NotBlinded]

NotBlinded ... I agree with what you said about "the trinity". In fact I brought this up myself in another thread - one of the first threads I was ever involved in.

I know...

[Asimov]

[

Why must he have the following attributes? Because they are necessary attributes as a maximal being.

 

Thats the answer. I love interacting with you Asimov. You make me think deeper. i always have to smoke afterward

 

Thanks!

 

 

Anyhow. If this ultimate all knowing, powerful, present everywhere presence or constant is just that; then applied a framework of attributes, even in good structure, is moot. Think deep here. Really, its not the application and concensus of God to be this ultimate presence, but the best logical perspective of this presence in the human mind, in which is finite.

 

Nothing says that God has to be "all" powerful, knowing or present, though. That's the point of saying Maximal versus "all". All creates too many problems.

[Asimov]

I disagree with your statement that the only method of obtaining knowledge and identifying with reality is reason.

 

Do you relate to people you love through rational, systematic, logical explanations that you can wrap your mind around intellectually, or do you just respond with feelings?

 

The explanation of sharing mutual feelings of love shows that it is perfectly rational, systematic and logical.

 

That response has meaning to you emotionally, and you consequently gain knowledge through this non-rational means. You know that you feel love. There are impressions of that indivual that you relate to on an emotional level. That constitues "knowledge".

 

No you don't, you gain knowledge through sense perception. Just because you both react to each other in the same way doesn't mean that you gain knowledge through emotions. Emotions are just reactions.

 

Think in terms of art. When you look at art, are your “thoughts” merely on the mechanics of how these lines and colors work together in such a way as to evoke some sort of chemical response in your biological vehicle that houses your thinking organ?

 

Like I said, that is the description of what happens when art illicits an emotional response.

 

Or do you respond with “non-rational” thought and gain a knowledge of things in this world that have meaning to you? For me I try to "understand" it with both rational and emotional thoughts, which helps expand me as a whole person to gain knowledge of what being a human being means.

 

Emotions aren't thoughts, they are reactions. A thought is a collection of sense data.

 

You seem to see that mythology and other non-rational methodologies have no value because they are “irrational”, but I would argue they are merely vehicles like art, music, and romance to gain “non-rational” thought or “knowledge”. Is knowledge gained through these means of no value because it cannot be dissected with the scalpel of rationality? In my opinion, to not experience life non-rationaly is to be as blocked from something that makes us a human being, as much as those who deny rational thought in their “irrational” approach to life. I guess I would say to deny experience of life non-rationally is itself a form of “irrationality”.

 

So far you've only claimed that art, music and romance are non-rational and you've only claimed that you can gain knowledge from this.

 

What knowledge are you speaking of? You may gain a new perspective through art, but if that perspective isn't in line with reality, then it's not knowledge we speak of. If it is in line with reality, then that is only because the art was a proper representation of reality.

[Asimov]

Of course it is always a bad thing, reason is our only method of obtaining knowledge and identifying with reality.

 

Where would science be without intuition?

 

I can't say, what do you mean by intuition?

 

Do you really think the first people who said that the earth was flat were considered "rational"?

 

Or how about those that tried to build an airplane, did the people in their cultures consider them "rational"?

 

Display of rationality is only by demonstrating your statements in a logical way. Self-rationalization is what you seem to be talking about.

 

Look at all the advances made in medicine, in science, in engineering - do you really believe that the first people who considered the possibility of something new were considered "rational". Most likely a good chunk of them were not only considered irrational but also just plain crazy (as in send them to the looney bin crazy).

 

Advances come in science, in engineering, in medicine - across the whole of humanity - because people use other ways of knowing - in addition to and along side of - rational thinking.

 

No they don't. Again, I can't comment on the idea of intuition since I don't know what you mean by that word.

 

Yep - I do - we all do. The difference is some of us recognize that we are operating off of pre-conceived notions and specific world-views and some of don't. Those of us who recognize our biases make conscious effort to expose ourselves to people with different points of view. That is why I like this board. It's full of people who recognize this trait within themselves and who are willing to participate in discussions with people different from themselves.

 

Yea, but even by 'exposing yourself' to different POV, you are operating on pre-conceived notions.

 

About the "only one way to know things" - Antlerman did a wonderful job answering that question. My additional comments about intuitive knowing would be the only thing I'd add.

 

About "infinity" being a human created abstract .... That's a whole other discussion. So.... you don't believe in "infinity" - it's all just within human thought processes?????

 

I don't believe in intuitive knowledge, nor do I think that infinity exists as an actual concept. Like the idea of objective morality or mathematics, infinity is an abstract. Until it is demonstrated than something infinite can actually exist, I have no reason to accept that it does.

[Open_Minded]

About "infinity" being a human created abstract .... That's a whole other discussion. So.... you don't believe in "infinity" - it's all just within human thought processes?????

I don't believe in intuitive knowledge, nor do I think that infinity exists as an actual concept. Like the idea of objective morality or mathematics, infinity is an abstract. Until it is demonstrated than something infinite can actually exist, I have no reason to accept that it does.

 

Asimov - have you never just "known in your gut"? Have you never just had a "gut feeling" and then followed it through to find out that you were right?

 

I am NOT saying that science should be based off of gut feelings, but come on... do you really believe that intuition does not play a roll in questioning and searching on all levels - even scientific?

[Antlerman]

I disagree with your statement that the only method of obtaining knowledge and identifying with reality is reason.

 

Do you relate to people you love through rational, systematic, logical explanations that you can wrap your mind around intellectually, or do you just respond with feelings?

 

The explanation of sharing mutual feelings of love shows that it is perfectly rational, systematic and logical.

I was not talking about rational description of love, but the actual experience of it. You don’t “think” emotions, you experience them. There are thoughts and knowledge that comes as a result these non-rational means.

 

No you don't, you gain knowledge through sense perception. Just because you both react to each other in the same way doesn't mean that you gain knowledge through emotions. Emotions are just reactions.

Really? I do. I find meaning through these emotional responses. Is that emotional sense and cognitive belief of meaning based on rational thought, or non-rational experience? Might that resultant belief based on emotion be “in error”? Sure, but so might a belief based on rational thought.

 

I’m thinking the real question should be which is most trustworthy way for determining accurate knowledge, not whether or not people can actually gain knowledge through emotional means? By knowledge, I mean awareness, understanding, meaning, increased perceptions, etc. All these things that come through emotions are then processed inside that thinking organ.

 

You can not analyze your way into feeling love. You cannot understand what love is without experiencing it. You can analyze love rationally outside it, but you will only gain knowledge of what it is by experiencing it. A knowledge that rational, descriptive words of language cannot convey. Enter in art, music, poetry, romance, mythology, etc, through which you can be taken to that non-rational place in yourself where you can experience and gain knoweldge of concepts that words and rational thought cannot teach.

 

Think in terms of art. When you look at art, are your “thoughts” merely on the mechanics of how these lines and colors work together in such a way as to evoke some sort of chemical response in your biological vehicle that houses your thinking organ?

 

Like I said, that is the description of what happens when art illicits an emotional response.

Yes precisely. It is a way to not experience art, only describe what it is rationally, but incompletely. Through my words you were unable to know what you can “see” through the experience of art.

 

You want to know what so marvelous about art? There is not only one way to understand it. Yet each understanding, or knowledge gained by it is 100% valid truth.

 

There’s lots of types of knowledge and truth in the world, not just scientific, rational truth.

 

Emotions aren't thoughts, they are reactions. A thought is a collection of sense data.

Just as thoughts themselves aren't knowledge, emotions likewise are a means to knowledge. How ais an emotion not a "collection of sense data" also?

 

You seem to see that mythology and other non-rational methodologies have no value because they are “irrational”, but I would argue they are merely vehicles like art, music, and romance to gain “non-rational” thought or “knowledge”. Is knowledge gained through these means of no value because it cannot be dissected with the scalpel of rationality? In my opinion, to not experience life non-rationaly is to be as blocked from something that makes us a human being, as much as those who deny rational thought in their “irrational” approach to life. I guess I would say to deny experience of life non-rationally is itself a form of “irrationality”.

 

So far you've only claimed that art, music and romance are non-rational and you've only claimed that you can gain knowledge from this.

 

What knowledge are you speaking of? You may gain a new perspective through art, but if that perspective isn't in line with reality, then it's not knowledge we speak of. If it is in line with reality, then that is only because the art was a proper representation of reality.

A good question, and I think the heart of the misunderstanding. Yes you gain a new perspective but it isn’t necessarily in line with all notions of reality. Which reality: Scientific reality; cultural reality; personal reality? Is there only ONE reality? I can’t agree with that. All you need to do is read even one thread on this site, let alone talk to any number of human beings about their perceptions. Are they in line with *real reality*? Is any human perception 100% in line with real reality?

 

It depends on what the question is. If you’re talking about the make-up of piece of granite, then certainly knowledge gained through “love” is the inappropriate means to gain knowledge and understand of what it is. If you want to understand what love is, you don’t take a biology class!! Is love a reality? Yes, it is a non-rational reality.

 

As far as this comment, “You may gain a new perspective through art, but if that perspective isn't in line with reality, then it's not knowledge we speak of. If it is in line with reality, then that is only because the art was a proper representation of reality.” I’m going to have to call you on this. NO art is a “proper” representation of reality. I hope you’re not using it in the sense of someone calling Jazz music, not “proper” music? What is “proper” in art? Art is expressions of individual perceptions of reality. It is a language. Science is also a language to describe a certain perception of reality. Which is valid? Which isn't?

 

Is this realistic?

 

 

 

If I can gain a new way of looking at the world through this, is it unrealistic, not following the current understanding of reality? That current understanding of reality which is completely influenced by cultural perceptions, beliefs, traditions, etc? Which perception is “the right one”? Western thought, Eastern thought, Middle Eastern thought? Which view of reality is “The Truth”?

 

Art, poetry, music, philosophy, mythology, dance, and song is the exploration of the human spirit through imagination, vision, dreams of possibilities, the experience of joy, love, life. The knoweldge gained is the knowledge of being human.

 

Rationality is only one tool in “relating” to the world. One which is powerful and extremely usefully, but not more or less that the others. I’m talking about tools to gain knowledge of what being human is. You can’t know love with experiencing it, and you can’t know what it is to be fully human without the knowledge of love.

[NotBlinded]

Antlerman,

 

I thought is was wonderful that you picked Van Gogh as your illustration. I have heard that he had painted a picture for someone at one time and this person said to him, "that looks nothing like her" or something to that effect. He then asks this man if he has a photo of his wife and the man says yes and then he shows Van Gogh the picture. Van Gogh said, "Oh...is she so small?"

[Asimov]

I am NOT saying that science should be based off of gut feelings, but come on... do you really believe that intuition does not play a roll in questioning and searching on all levels - even scientific?

 

Gut feelings aren't displays of knowledge, OM.

[Open_Minded]

I am NOT saying that science should be based off of gut feelings, but come on... do you really believe that intuition does not play a roll in questioning and searching on all levels - even scientific?

Gut feelings aren't displays of knowledge, OM.

 

OK .... Let's talk about this for a little bit.

 

A very good friend of mine (about 10 years ago - even longer - she was in her early 30s - we're now close to 50 - I feel like I'm getting old. But, I digress...)

 

Anyway - a good friend of mine - when she was in her early 30s - had this nagging "gut feeling" that she should have a mammogram done. Now - Asimov - she was still in her early 30s. She'd never had a mammogram in her life. She did regular self-examinations - but that was the extent of her concern about breast cancer.

 

So... here she is - she's got this nagging feeling that she can't shake that she should go have a mammogram. And you guessed it - she goes to the doctor, has the mammogram and they find breast cancer. Not only do they find breast cancer but they find a particularly invasive form of breast cancer that doesn't show up in self-examination until it is further along than when other forms of breast cancer are discovered by self-examination.

 

And - here's the thing - Asimov - she had this nagging feeling that she needed to tell the doctor to pay particularly close attention to her right breast. And - again - you guessed it - the cancer was in the right breast.

 

Now that's some kind of "gut feeling" don't you think?

 

Please explain to me what her "gut feeling" was if it was not a "display of knowledge", Asimov?

 

You should know in advance that we've heard every explanation under the sun from her doctors. "Oh - you must have seen something on T.V. about the need to have regular mammograms.... and your subconscious picked it up. It's just a fluke that you also happened to have breast cancer..... La...La.... La".

 

The thing is Asimov, when you're a woman you're constantly bombarded with messages to pay attention for breast cancer. If you're not hearing it on the news, or reading it in the paper, you're getting literature from your local hospital. Women's health is huge business - and within the relatively lucrative market of women's health - breast cancer tops the list. So... living in a culture where we get these messages daily - why did my friend suddenly get this nagging feeling that she should not only have a mammogram - but that she should tell her doctor to pay close attention to the right breast?

 

She was a relatively young woman and very healthy. Like me - she avoids doctors, hospitals and chemical medications as if they are the plaque. So, wouldn't you say it was a bit odd that she'd just suddenly up and decide to go get a mammogram and find out that she had cancer?

 

Where did she get the "knowledge" that she had breast cancer - if it did not come from some type of instinctual, intuitive "knowing" within her very body

?

[Asimov]

I am NOT saying that science should be based off of gut feelings, but come on... do you really believe that intuition does not play a roll in questioning and searching on all levels - even scientific?

Gut feelings aren't displays of knowledge, OM.

 

OK .... Let's talk about this for a little bit.

 

A very good friend of mine (about 10 years ago - even longer - she was in her early 30s - we're now close to 50 - I feel like I'm getting old. But, I digress...)

 

Anyway - a good friend of mine - when she was in her early 30s - had this nagging "gut feeling" that she should have a mammogram done. Now - Asimov - she was still in her early 30s. She'd never had a mammogram in her life. She did regular self-examinations - but that was the extent of her concern about breast cancer.

 

So... here she is - she's got this nagging feeling that she can't shake that she should go have a mammogram. And you guessed it - she goes to the doctor, has the mammogram and they find breast cancer. Not only do they find breast cancer but they find a particularly invasive form of breast cancer that doesn't show up in self-examination until it is further along than when other forms of breast cancer are discovered by self-examination.

 

And - here's the thing - Asimov - she had this nagging feeling that she needed to tell the doctor to pay particularly close attention to her right breast. And - again - you guessed it - the cancer was in the right breast.

 

Now that's some kind of "gut feeling" don't you think?

 

Please explain to me what her "gut feeling" was if it was not a "display of knowledge", Asimov?

 

You should know in advance that we've heard every explanation under the sun from her doctors. "Oh - you must have seen something on T.V. about the need to have regular mammograms.... and your subconscious picked it up. It's just a fluke that you also happened to have breast cancer..... La...La.... La".

 

The thing is Asimov, when you're a woman you're constantly bombarded with messages to pay attention for breast cancer. If you're not hearing it on the news, or reading it in the paper, you're getting literature from your local hospital. Women's health is huge business - and within the relatively lucrative market of women's health - breast cancer tops the list. So... living in a culture where we get these messages daily - why did my friend suddenly get this nagging feeling that she should not only have a mammogram - but that she should tell her doctor to pay close attention to the right breast?

 

She was a relatively young woman and very healthy. Like me - she avoids doctors, hospitals and chemical medications as if they are the plaque. So, wouldn't you say it was a bit odd that she'd just suddenly up and decide to go get a mammogram and find out that she had cancer?

 

Where did she get the "knowledge" that she had breast cancer - if it did not come from some type of instinctual, intuitive "knowing" within her very body

?

 

Hmmm...what about those nagging gut-feelings that people have that they have some kind of disease or are pregnant (I know, what's the difference?) and then it turns out they are WRONG.

 

This sounds too much like proof of prayer.

 

Knowledge is:

A justified true belief.

 

1. She believed she had breast Cancer.

2. It was true that she had breast cancer.

3. She couldn't justify why she believed that she had breast cancer.

 

It wasn't knowledge.

[Asimov]

I was not talking about rational description of love, but the actual experience of it. You don’t “think” emotions, you experience them. There are thoughts and knowledge that comes as a result these non-rational means.

 

Yes, you experience emotions because they are reactions. You don't gain knowledge from emotions themselves.

 

Really? I do. I find meaning through these emotional responses. Is that emotional sense and cognitive belief of meaning based on rational thought, or non-rational experience? Might that resultant belief based on emotion be “in error”? Sure, but so might a belief based on rational thought.

 

Finding meaning and attaining knowledge are not the same thing. A belief based on emotion is invalid.

 

You can not analyze your way into feeling love. You cannot understand what love is without experiencing it. You can analyze love rationally outside it, but you will only gain knowledge of what it is by experiencing it. A knowledge that rational, descriptive words of language cannot convey. Enter in art, music, poetry, romance, mythology, etc, through which you can be taken to that non-rational place in yourself where you can experience and gain knoweldge of concepts that words and rational thought cannot teach.

 

You can't know anything except through experiences and ratioanal thought, Antlerman. You experience an emotion through your sense perception and then you suddenly coalesce that experience into a concept, then you call it "love".

 

Yes precisely. It is a way to not experience art, only describe what it is rationally, but incompletely. Through my words you were unable to know what you can “see” through the experience of art.

 

Nonsense.

 

You want to know what so marvelous about art? There is not only one way to understand it. Yet each understanding, or knowledge gained by it is 100% valid truth.

 

There is no knowledge gained specifically through art.

 

Just as thoughts themselves aren't knowledge, emotions likewise are a means to knowledge. How ais an emotion not a "collection of sense data" also?

 

Because it's not a means of perception. It's a reaction.

 

A good question, and I think the heart of the misunderstanding. Yes you gain a new perspective but it isn’t necessarily in line with all notions of reality. Which reality: Scientific reality; cultural reality; personal reality? Is there only ONE reality? I can’t agree with that. All you need to do is read even one thread on this site, let alone talk to any number of human beings about their perceptions. Are they in line with *real reality*? Is any human perception 100% in line with real reality?

 

No, that doesn't mean there are other realities, Antlerman. We've gone over this.

 

It depends on what the question is. If you’re talking about the make-up of piece of granite, then certainly knowledge gained through “love” is the inappropriate means to gain knowledge and understand of what it is. If you want to understand what love is, you don’t take a biology class!! Is love a reality? Yes, it is a non-rational reality.

 

If you want to understand anything, you have to experience it, that doesn't mean that emotions themselves are means of obtaining knowledge. The EXPERIENCE of the emotion and the cognitive process results in knowledge.

 

I’m going to have to call you on this. NO art is a “proper” representation of reality. I hope you’re not using it in the sense of someone calling Jazz music, not “proper” music? What is “proper” in art? Art is expressions of individual perceptions of reality. It is a language. Science is also a language to describe a certain perception of reality. Which is valid? Which isn't?

 

Allow me to rephrase with a quote:

 

"Objectivism defines "art" as a "selective re-creation of reality according to an artist's metaphysical value-judgments" — that is, according to what the artist believes to be ultimately true and important about the nature of reality and humanity. In this respect Objectivism regards art as a way of presenting abstractions concretely, in perceptual form."

 

 

Is this realistic?

 

Irrelevant.

[Open_Minded]

Knowledge is:

A justified true belief.

 

1. She believed she had breast Cancer.

2. It was true that she had breast cancer.

3. She couldn't justify why she believed that she had breast cancer.

 

It wasn't knowledge.

 

OK.... let's clarify what YOU think knowledge is:

 

"Knowledge is a justified belief"

 

If I'm understanding what you wrote here, and elsewhere, knowledge is gained through use of our five physical senses.

1. We see something with our eyes.
   
2. Our brain processes what we see and interprets it - assessing what we see against knowledge it already has.
   
3. Since what we see - is physical - can be seen (and verified - or as you said "justified") by more than one individual - we then have a valid means of gaining knowledge.
   

Is this a correct interpretation of the way you understand the process of gaining knowledge?

[Antlerman]

Yes, you experience emotions because they are reactions. You don't gain knowledge from emotions themselves.

Alright, would you consider gaining a new perspective on something, a new understanding, to be gaining knowledge?

 

Finding meaning and attaining knowledge are not the same thing. A belief based on emotion is invalid.

How do you define knowledge? From wiki:

 

Knowledge is the awareness and understanding of facts, truths or information gained in the form of experience or learning (a posteriori), or through introspection (a priori)

 

This is what I am saying.

 

As for your last statement, “a belief based on emotion is invalid”: Invalid to whom and in what ways?

 

BTW, if it is possible to have a belief based on emotion as you are indicating it is, then knowledge comes from emotion, yes? Is a belief not based a knowledge? Isn’t it based on an “understanding of facts, truths or information”?

 

You can't know anything except through experiences and ratioanal thought, Antlerman. You experience an emotion through your sense perception and then you suddenly coalesce that experience into a concept, then you call it "love".

Yes. But haven’t I been saying that you gain knowledge through emotional experience? I have never said you don’t process the perception with your mind. I am saying there is no way you can know something that the experience of emotion can show, without experiencing the emotion. It is a means to gaining knowledge, as I have said consistently.

 

Yes precisely. It is a way to not experience art, only describe what it is rationally, but incompletely. Through my words you were unable to know what you can “see” through the experience of art.

 

Nonsense.

I stand by what I said. Do you think me describing a music score gives you the same understanding of it as you experiencing it? How is this nonsence?

 

There is no knowledge gained specifically through art.

Then why bother with art at all? Why dream? Why image? Just the facts, and nothing more?

 

Because it's not a means of perception. It's a reaction.

And that reaction alters perception which alters understanding.

 

Do you think you should supress and deny emotions because they get in the way of facts? Would we be better off for them to be gone because they get in the way of determining reality?

[-Demona-]

Every time I see the title to this thread, I think of a line from my favourite movie:

 

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

 

Thanks, Asimov.

 

Now, back to your regularly scheduled thread...

[Asimov]

Knowledge is:

A justified true belief.

 

1. She believed she had breast Cancer.

2. It was true that she had breast cancer.

3. She couldn't justify why she believed that she had breast cancer.

 

It wasn't knowledge.

 

OK.... let's clarify what YOU think knowledge is:

 

"Knowledge is a justified belief"

 

Sorry, it's not what I arbitrarily think knowledge is. It's the accepted philosophical definition of knowledge.

 

If I'm understanding what you wrote here, and elsewhere, knowledge is gained through use of our five physical senses.

1. We see something with our eyes.
   
2. Our brain processes what we see and interprets it - assessing what we see against knowledge it already has.
   
3. Since what we see - is physical - can be seen (and verified - or as you said "justified") by more than one individual - we then have a valid means of gaining knowledge.
   

Is this a correct interpretation of the way you understand the process of gaining knowledge?

 

1. We perceive things through our sense perceptions.

2. Our percepts coalesce into concepts through the faculties of the brain.

3. Justified is having a rational non-contradictory reasoning process for believing something.

[Asimov]

Alright, would you consider gaining a new perspective on something, a new understanding, to be gaining knowledge?

 

If it's a justified true belief, yes. You still have to have the cognitive process of rationalization in order to gain knowledge. You don't "just get" knowledge.

 

How do you define knowledge? From wiki:

 

Knowledge is the awareness and understanding of facts, truths or information gained in the form of experience or learning (a posteriori), or through introspection (a priori)

 

This is what I am saying.

 

As for your last statement, “a belief based on emotion is invalid”: Invalid to whom and in what ways?

 

BTW, if it is possible to have a belief based on emotion as you are indicating it is, then knowledge comes from emotion, yes? Is a belief not based a knowledge? Isn’t it based on an “understanding of facts, truths or information”?

 

You also need to scroll down to where wiki says "defining knowledge", and how it is a "justified true belief".

 

It's invalid because justifying ones belief based on emotion is logically fallacious. Stating:

 

"I can't explain it, but I just feel this is true. Everyone has a right to their opinion." Is an admission that one has no reason to believe something, they just believe it because they want it to be true.

 

Knowledge comes from cognitive processing through reason. Since knowledge is a justified true belief, if you say:

 

1. I believe this is true because I feel it is true.

 

You are essentially only have a belief. Even if it happens to be true, that is a felicitous coincidence.

 

 

Yes. But haven’t I been saying that you gain knowledge through emotional experience? I have never said you don’t process the perception with your mind. I am saying there is no way you can know something that the experience of emotion can show, without experiencing the emotion. It is a means to gaining knowledge, as I have said consistently.

 

Well you've so far denied that any reasoning is used in this processing of experience.

 

I stand by what I said. Do you think me describing a music score gives you the same understanding of it as you experiencing it? How is this nonsence?

 

Describing the musical score in what way?

 

Then why bother with art at all? Why dream? Why image? Just the facts, and nothing more?

 

Because it's aesthetically pleasing, Antlerman.

 

And that reaction alters perception which alters understanding.

 

Unless you don't let your emotions control you. The reaction doesn't alter perception, it alters the conception if use our reaction in order to justify certain beliefs.

 

1. X is a jerk because I'm angry at him.

 

Do you think you should supress and deny emotions because they get in the way of facts? Would we be better off for them to be gone because they get in the way of determining reality?

 

No, emotions create social bonds, which are a necessity due to our nature. We value ourselves, we value life, and we value those around us through emotional bonds.

 

We should suppress and deny emotions when gaining knowledge.