Reductionism And Materialism Are Not Scientific Givens

[Shyone]

Granted #1, but that doesn't mean one is right or wrong.

Nope - it's not right or wrong - but it should give us westerns reason to review our own world view. If our own world view were so valid, it would be universally embraced.

 

 

I do not grant #2 which makes an emotional claim that I don't think is true or verifiable. It sounds like projection and reeks of "Atheists are materialists, and atheists are miserable. Only Christians are fulfilled and happy happy happy!!!!!"

Did you read my WHOLE post where I acknowledged that extremist religion also leaves people feeling a void in their lives???? My statement had nothing to do with "Only Christians are fulfilled and happy"... So please don't read into it. My statement may be a subjective point of view, but I stand by it. If rigid materialism was a valid world-view, it would be embraced universally. The simple fact that so many people reject should give those who abide by fundamentalist materialism pause.... if they were right it would be self-evident and the rest of us would be hopping on board.

 

 

I do not grant #3 which again is projection. Social Darwinism is NOT evolution and has been discredited and is now only used by Christians opposed to evolution to show that materialist atheists are incapable of morality. Give us a friggin' break.

You don't grant that the materialistic world-view leads to war????... then please explain the wars faught over natural resources - like oil? You don't think that boils down to greed and survival of the fittest? I'm not talking about the way you view it. I'm talking about our western "winner take all" culture. Where do you think that attitude comes from? Sure humans are greedy - on a universal nature. We've been fighting over natural resources for the entirety of our history. But - don't you suppose it's just a tiny bit possible - that the reason materialism (fundamentalist, rigid materialism) is so popular in the West is because it's a convenient excuse for our own greed? And just to be clear, I'm not singling out Atheists and Agnostics here... I know many materialists who are also Christian. This is about materialsim taken to extreme. In the west, we invented the materialistic culture, we are consumerists and we are consuming the earth - very literally we are consuming the earth. It doesn't matter if we're Christian, or non-Christian, we're all part of the consumption, of the materialism. And our motto is "survival of the fittest". We have phrases like "it's a jungle out there", or "winner take all". Here in the U.S. we treat capitalism like it is a religion - it doesn't matter that the gap between the richest and poorist in this country is growing and the largest it's been in decades, it's capitalism, it's winner take all and survival of the fittest, and if you're on the bottom of the pile - well that's your problem. Where in any of that is there a statement about Atheists vs. Christians. We're all doing it - we all share the materialist world-view - that's the problem......

 

I do not grant #4. Atheists/materialists have every reason to conserve, and most ecologists are liberal. Those who believe that Man has dominion over the earth's resources and that the world is coming to and end "soon" with the Rapture have no regard for the environment. Likewise, those who think everything is spiritual, and there is no reality, are less likely to give a flip about what is real - the earth and our environment.

Again, you're reading into what I said. Did I ever say that (in my mind) materialism was equal to Atheists???? Show me a place I said that.

 

We are all part of the materialistic culture, all of us. And our country - is responsibile for a huge amount of the global weather crisis. Western industrialized and materialist nations can claim the lion's share of the responsibility in this area. And it boils down to a winner take all - survival of the fittest approach to life. We live in a rich nation, we can use the resources as we want... damn the consequences for the planet and for the rest of the people on this planet. We're the winners, they're the loosers.

 

Once again - you don't have to convince me that religion has contributed to all of this. I am bloody well aware of that. But.... it's high time that we acknowledged the role an unbending materialism plays in the whole damned mess as well.

 

___________________________

 

Please understand, I acknowledge there are valid scientific methods of research, and then there is projecting what is valid in the science laboratory into our social consciousness. For the last 300 years the western social consciousness has been infused "clock-work" view of the universe, in which the "fittest" are the survivors and the rest are left to their own resources. These are the failed analogies of science. You all spend so much time talking about the failed anologies of religion, when will you honestly look at the failed analogies of science??????

 

Legion hit the nail on the head when he said the "Clock-work universe" was a failed analogy - that is the whole point of this thread. Science is not without fault in the messes we humans find ourselves in and it's high-time we westerns - enthralled with the scientific paradigm - owned up to this. And please notice I said we westerners and NOT Atheists.

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------

I'm just going to leave all that shit up there in case people want to refer to it.

 

First, materialism does not lead to any emotional consequences. PERIOD! There is no void. I am fulfilled and a materialist. I don't give a flip what religious extremism says. It is irrelevent.

 

Second, This shit about materialism leading to war. IT DOESN'T. And the argument is Irrelevent. We were fighting a fucking crusade agsinst a religiously motivated enemy - or so Bush claimed and probably believed since he called it a crusade. Did we get lots of oil? No. And don't confuse materialism with greed. The two are not synonymous. NOT. Got it? No, of course not.

 

Third, Materialists conserve. You missed the fucking point. Materialism leads to conservation of natural resources as opposed to those who think "God will provide." AS OPPOSED TO. Regardless of whatever the fuck the religious people believe, materialism does not lead to wasting of natural resources.

 

Finally, all materialists are atheists. All atheists are not materialists. If you don't understand a concept, don't misrepresent it and lie about it.

 

We are all part of the materialistic culture, all of us.

 

Let me put it this way. Materialism as a philosophy does not necessarily imply "materialistic". Materialism refers to how things work. Materialism is The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena.

 

Materialistic in the sense you are using it means Primarily concerned with material objects and worldly activities, as contrasted with spiritual, moral or philosophical concerns; especially, concerned primarily with gaining money and the things that money can buy.

 

Do you see the difference? Don't call me materialistic. Don't assume I'm greedy.

[Antlerman]

Breather. It's fine if you get passionate about your point of view, but swearing and shouting in responses to emphasize that does not belong in the Colosseum. Please make every effort to control that in discussions here. Thank you.

[Open_Minded]

First, materialism does not lead to any emotional consequences. PERIOD! There is no void. I am fulfilled and a materialist.

Great... you are a fullfilled materialist. But, at what point did I insinuate that my comments were about you? Or any other materialist for that matter? Just to be clear .... this thread is not about you or any other person. There is a whole lot more going on here than that.

 

Second, This shit about materialism leading to war. IT DOESN'T. And the argument is Irrelevent. We were fighting a fucking crusade agsinst a religiously motivated enemy - or so Bush claimed and probably believed since he called it a crusade. Did we get lots of oil? No. And don't confuse materialism with greed. The two are not synonymous. NOT. Got it? No, of course not.

Believe what you want to believe ... but there is a mountain of evidence that oil had a huge role in that war. Bush and company (many of whom were straight out of the oil industry) used religion to divide and conquer... but the evidence of big American and British oil companies profiting from the war is huge.

 

2ndly - I never said materialism was synoymous with greed. Specifically I pointed out that greed is a human trait, and that religion plays its role as well. But, and this is my point, it's about time that we westerns (not Atheists, westerns) owned up to the role STRICT Materialist Newtonian scientific world view plays in our greedy consumption.

 

We are all part of the materialistic culture, all of us.

 

Let me put it this way. Materialism as a philosophy does not necessarily imply "materialistic". Materialism refers to how things work. Materialism is The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena.

 

Materialistic in the sense you are using it means Primarily concerned with material objects and worldly activities, as contrasted with spiritual, moral or philosophical concerns; especially, concerned primarily with gaining money and the things that money can buy.

 

Do you see the difference? Don't call me materialistic. Don't assume I'm greedy.

 

OK... get down off your high horse and go show me where I called YOU materialistic, or myself for that matter, or anyone involved in this whole discussion.

 

I know the difference between a materialist and materialism, I'm not stupid. That is not my point, I'm talking about a world-view here. A world-view that has been dominated for 300 years by the analogies of Newtonian science. Again - we westerns were born into this world-view, we grew up in it, we are emersed in it. The differences you are talking about are self-evident in a theoretical discussion, they are not so self-evident in the culture of our society. It is a world-view for Pete's sake, that implies it permetes the our view of the world, our view or ourselves in the world.

 

And as I said before, I'm bloody well aware of the failings of religion. This thread is NOT about the failings of religion, the whole Ex-C board focuses on that. This thread is about the failings of the dominate scientific world view......

 

As I said in my previous post:

 

These are the failed analogies of science. You all spend so much time talking about the failed anologies of religion, when will you honestly look at the failed analogies of science??????

 

Legion hit the nail on the head when he said the "Clock-work universe" was a failed analogy - that is the whole point of this thread. Science is not without fault in the messes we humans find ourselves in and it's high-time we westerns - enthralled with the scientific paradigm - owned up to this. And please notice I said we westerners and NOT Atheists.

 

Once again, just because you're a westerner doesn't mean you are into materialism. Nor does it mean that anyone in this conversation is into materialsim. I am talking about a world-view here. And the Newtonian scientific world-view dominates in our culture. So... I'll just ask you one simple question....

 

Do YOU feel that there are any failed analogies within science?

[Shyone]

 

Once again, just because you're a westerner doesn't mean you are into materialism. Nor does it mean that anyone in this conversation is into materialsim. I am talking about a world-view here. And the Newtonian scientific world-view dominates in our culture. So... I'll just ask you one simple question....

 

Do YOU feel that there are any failed analogies within science?

Ok, I've had a breather,and I apologise for losing my temper.

 

I do want to be sure that we distinguish between materialism as a philosophy and world view and "materialisic" actions and attitudes that are harmful to people, society and the environment.

 

Now to your question, "failed analogies" doesn't ring a bell. Perhaps an example might help. I can recall some inappropriate applications of scientific discoveries, but these do not invalidate the discoveries themselves. Likewise, inappropriate applications of religious dogma, such as the inquisition, do not invalidate Christianity.

[NotBlinded]

NotBlinded.... ILTWYT (Do you remember what that means)

I could never forget O_M and back at ya!

[Open_Minded]

I do want to be sure that we distinguish between materialism as a philosophy and world view and "materialisic" actions and attitudes that are harmful to people, society and the environment.

I agree, there is a difference between the philosophy of materialism and materialistic actions and attitudes.

 

Now to your question, "failed analogies" doesn't ring a bell. Perhaps an example might help. I can recall some inappropriate applications of scientific discoveries, but these do not invalidate the discoveries themselves. Likewise, inappropriate applications of religious dogma, such as the inquisition, do not invalidate Christianity.

 

Well Legion first brought this up with the follwing post: http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?/topic/33617-reductionism-and-materialism-are-not-scientific-givens/page__view__findpost__p__492318

 

Well maybe, just maybe, the machine metaphor in biology is a disaster.

 

I would agree with that statement. Also the metaphor/anology of a "clock-work" universe is (for me personally) soul-less. On a personal level that way of viewing something as grand and beautiful and awe-striking as the universe leaves a lot to be desired. It leaves me feeling empty - quite frankly. And please remember when you're reading about my own views - that I am NOT projecting my opinion of a metaphor onto you as a person. Please remember that.

 

You asked for other examples, I don't know if this is an example of a metaphor or analogy... but it's how I feel the western culture has used its scientific knowledge.

 

Since the pursuit of science in the west has allowed us to develop industry faster, we think very highly of ourselves (as a culture). As a culture, our world view contains alot of destructive self-satisfaction. Because our science helped us grow our economy and we're wealthier than non-industrialized nations, we think we're more "advanced". There is the notion in cultures with a scientific world-view that materialistic values are somehow "better" or "more advanced" than nations without the same level of science, industrialization and commercialization are "backward".

 

In addition to that I really do believe our scientific knowledge is mis-used in making war machines. I believe because we have this ability and we're "bigger and stronger" - there is a "survival of the fittest" mentality when it comes to international relations.

 

(Sigh) Shyone... I really do wish I could stay and talk with you for a long time about all of this. But, I am traveling and only have access to my laptop when I'm in the hotel room. And... I won't be in the hotel room that much (just to sleep) because there is a lot going on with famiy and friends.

 

Please understand, my concern is with a world-view we all grew up with, have been immersed in since our births and have to live with every day. My concerns are NOT with any particular person or group of persons. I'm fully aware of the downfalls of the fundamentalist Christian world-view. But, I started this thread to look honestly and deeply at the reductionist world-view when it gets treated as dogma. That is all I am concerned about here.... Please do understand that. In my mind dogma is dogma.... whether it comes from religion or science it is still rigid, it is still unable to accept any other view besides its own as valid and it is still destructive.

 

In Peace - O_M

[Shyone]

 

You asked for other examples, I don't know if this is an example of a metaphor or analogy... but it's how I feel the western culture has used its scientific knowledge.

 

Since the pursuit of science in the west has allowed us to develop industry faster, we think very highly of ourselves (as a culture). As a culture, our world view contains alot of destructive self-satisfaction. Because our science helped us grow our economy and we're wealthier than non-industrialized nations, we think we're more "advanced". There is the notion in cultures with a scientific world-view that materialistic values are somehow "better" or "more advanced" than nations without the same level of science, industrialization and commercialization are "backward".

 

In addition to that I really do believe our scientific knowledge is mis-used in making war machines. I believe because we have this ability and we're "bigger and stronger" - there is a "survival of the fittest" mentality when it comes to international relations.

 

Ok, I understand. Surprizingly I agree. If you are a fan of JRR Tolkien you know he wasn't big on industrialization, and his nightmarish depictions of a culture dependent on industry and war are horrific. And I would like to see some friggin swords beaten into plowshares. I hate war and the whole "military industrial complex."

 

Ideally, we should like a pastoral society with little industry, but quite frankly our industry is at least partly why we have a stable society with food for US citizens. Thomas Malthus made predictions that didn't come true because of advances in farming and industry, so all industry is not bad.

 

 

(Sigh) Shyone... I really do wish I could stay and talk with you for a long time about all of this. But, I am traveling and only have access to my laptop when I'm in the hotel room. And... I won't be in the hotel room that much (just to sleep) because there is a lot going on with famiy and friends.

 

Please understand, my concern is with a world-view we all grew up with, have been immersed in since our births and have to live with every day. My concerns are NOT with any particular person or group of persons. I'm fully aware of the downfalls of the fundamentalist Christian world-view. But, I started this thread to look honestly and deeply at the reductionist world-view when it gets treated as dogma. That is all I am concerned about here.... Please do understand that. In my mind dogma is dogma.... whether it comes from religion or science it is still rigid, it is still unable to accept any other view besides its own as valid and it is still destructive.

 

In Peace - O_M

Yes, dogma is dogma. And there are atheists that are dogmatic. I am probably biased, but empiricism is not dogma but a method of exploring and understanding. It basically says "See what is, and test it. If tests verify what it appears to be, it is more likely. Otherwise, keep looking."

 

It seeks to find unity in what is seen and universial verifiability in what exists. Both of us can look at a door and know that it is hard and agree on the definition of a door. We can hit it, try to walk through it, and know that it is indeed solid. We can test to see that it acts like a door and agree upon what that should be. And if it should act different, we will both be surprized, but we will seek to find out together why it isn't acting like a door, and our observations will agree.

 

Empiricism is the foundation of science. Predictability determines the success of the models accepted, and it is crucial to keep an open mind in case another model predicts better (but still looking to see why old models predicted well). It should all fit together and make sense.

 

Ultimately, in order for empricism to be useful, it must assume materialism.

 

A clockwork universe is indeed "cold" and "soulless". In every respect. Sorry about that. It can't be helped.

[NotBlinded]

It seeks to find unity in what is seen and universial verifiability in what exists. Both of us can look at a door and know that it is hard and agree on the definition of a door. We can hit it, try to walk through it, and know that it is indeed solid. We can test to see that it acts like a door and agree upon what that should be. And if it should act different, we will both be surprized, but we will seek to find out together why it isn't acting like a door, and our observations will agree.

Yes, Shyone, that it wonderful but what really is this solid? What does that mean? There is likely just as much empty space between the atoms in the door as there are space between the stars. (The use of the word "what" implies a ghost, but the language limits me)

 

Maybe materialism needs to expand to include this so-called empty space or it needs to stay as it is and allow another area to investigate it and then they can come together with a greater understanding??

[Shyone]

 

Yes, Shyone, that it wonderful but what really is this solid? What does that mean? There is likely just as much empty space between the atoms in the door as there are space between the stars. (The use of the word "what" implies a ghost, but the language limits me)

 

Maybe materialism needs to expand to include this so-called empty space or it needs to stay as it is and allow another area to investigate it and then they can come together with a greater understanding??

This occurred to me as I was writing. SCALE is important when considering reality. People get confused when you say that a door is mostly empty space, and your body is empty space. They try to walk through the door, and hurt themselves (and fail to pass through the door).

 

Reductionism should look at atomic structure and electron orbital clouds and all that, determine what holds things together, look at what makes solid things solid (on our scale) and the make predictions that conform to actuality. Reality "for a neutron" is not the same as reality for a human, but at some level there should be agreement.

 

It's like newtonian physics and relativistic physics. At speeds like we see on earth, things behave one way, and both types of calculations essentially agree. Near light speed, relativistic physics would be better at predicting behavior of objects.

 

And, at distances that dwarf human comprehension, there are perhaps laws that may apply (curved universe?) that would otherwise not be relevent to our existence.

 

So "solid" is solid to all observers unequivocally provided we agree on the scale and parameters to be measured.

 

Trying to take subatomic particle physics and recreate "Strawberry Fields"* is not useful for reality on a human scale.

 

*(Strawberry Fields... Nothing is real... And nothing to get hung about... Strawberry Fields forever...]

[Legion]

I don’t believe that chasing particles

is going to give us very much

understanding of living things.

[Open_Minded]

Ok, I understand. Surprizingly I agree. If you are a fan of JRR Tolkien you know he wasn't big on industrialization, and his nightmarish depictions of a culture dependent on industry and war are horrific. And I would like to see some friggin swords beaten into plowshares. I hate war and the whole "military industrial complex."

 

Ideally, we should like a pastoral society with little industry, but quite frankly our industry is at least partly why we have a stable society with food for US citizens. Thomas Malthus made predictions that didn't come true because of advances in farming and industry, so all industry is not bad.

Yes... all of this is true

 

Yes, dogma is dogma. And there are atheists that are dogmatic.

Yes there are (sigh)

 

I am probably biased

We are all biased ... that is normal human behavior. What I enjoy about this conversation is that all of us come to admitting our biases. That is the antithesis of dogmatic.

 

but empiricism is not dogma but a method of exploring and understanding. It basically says "See what is, and test it. If tests verify what it appears to be, it is more likely. Otherwise, keep looking."

 

It seeks to find unity in what is seen and universial verifiability in what exists. Both of us can look at a door and know that it is hard and agree on the definition of a door. We can hit it, try to walk through it, and know that it is indeed solid. We can test to see that it acts like a door and agree upon what that should be. And if it should act different, we will both be surprized, but we will seek to find out together why it isn't acting like a door, and our observations will agree.

 

Empiricism is the foundation of science. Predictability determines the success of the models accepted, and it is crucial to keep an open mind in case another model predicts better (but still looking to see why old models predicted well). It should all fit together and make sense.

Shyone I am not trying to do away with empiricism, I don't see that anyone in this conversation is trying to do away with empiricism. I agree - at some point science must reach consensus by empirical data. We all agree on this.

 

A clockwork universe is indeed "cold" and "soulless". In every respect. Sorry about that. It can't be helped.

Yes... actually it can be helped. Actually... empiricism IS helping it. This goes right to the root of the discussion. "Reductionism and Materialisn are NOT Scientific Givens". There is a difference between empiricism and materialism. You said earlier...

 

Ultimately, in order for empricism to be useful, it must assume materialism.

Quantum physics with its wavicals and "potentia" at the foundation of reality is forcing us to rethink where materialism fits into reality. Please understand here, Shyone, I am NOT saying it is forcing us to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Materialism is necessary for classical empiricism ... this science agrees on. But... we have discovered a level of reality in which empirically speaking materialism has (at the least) very little to say. And so... empiricism is REQUIRING us to rethink the soulless and cold clock work universe.

 

Personally I couldn't be happier. But... more to the point of the discussion... science is being turned on its ear no less than when Newtonian physics forced humanity to rethink the picture of reality prevelant at that time.

 

We (all of humanity) are all on the cusp of just such a change in how reality is viewed. The metaphor of a clockwork universe is being empirically questioned (by many scientists) for the first time in 300 years. The metaphor of a clockwork universe is giving way to something with soul and life.

 

I refer again to a metaphor given to the world by David Bohm: http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?/topic/33617-reductionism-and-materialism-are-not-scientific-givens/page__view__findpost__p__492400

 

In Bohm's view, all the separate objects, entities, structures, and events in the visible or explicate world around us are relatively autonomous, stable, and temporary "subtotalities" derived from a deeper, implicate order of unbroken wholeness. Bohm gives the analogy of a flowing stream:

A stream is a living eco system, what a wonderful analogy in comparison to a mechanical clock.

 

Bohm said:

On this stream, one may see an ever-changing pattern of vortices, ripples, waves, splashes, etc., which evidently have no independent existence as such. Rather, they are abstracted from the flowing movement, arising and vanishing in the total process of the flow. Such transitory subsistence as may be possessed by these abstracted forms implies only a relative independence or autonomy of behaviour, rather than absolutely independent existence as ultimate substances

 

Bohm also used the following phrase to describe the universe...."Undivided Wholeness in Flowing Movement." .... What a wonderful description, metaphor... "flowing movement" ... hardly lifeless, cold and soulless.....

 

This is my point, scientists themselves are debating the validity of a "clockwork" universe. Scientists themselves are in disagreement whether the universe is cold and soulless or whether the universe is a living Unity...

 

And impirically speaking the ONLY thing that can be said is that science is proving more and more that whatever deep reality is - nonlocality requires that it be a HOLISTIC reality, a unity.

 

The metaphor of a clockwork universe is hardly holistic..... Bohm's metaphor of a stream..... very beautiful and living and holistic. A stream is an ecosystem with a life of its own..

 

The process will continue... quantum physics will increasingly require us to grapple with, and eventually discard the metaphor of a clockwork universe. What metaphor will arise and take center stage, I've no idea. I hope Bohm's stream is front and center stage.... but I am only one person. Time and history will tell the story....

 

 

And make no mistake about it... metaphors have power - we all know this. They have power in religion and they have power in science. We should care about the way they are used within our culture. Earlier I quoted Dr. Elisabet Sahtouris, a biologist. http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?/topic/33617-reductionism-and-materialism-are-not-scientific-givens/page__view__findpost__p__492747

 

Elisabet Sahtouris has spent the better part of her life observing intelligence at play in the biological world. As an author, professor, and consultant, she advocates for a shift in the Western scientific worldview that would acknowledge the centrality of consciousness in an evolving cosmos. We invited Dr. Sahtouris to share what she thinks the future holds for us in the face of a growing number of global crises. Her response may surprise you.

 

And from the piece Elisabet wrote...

The scientific creation story we’ve known,

at its simplest

, has come from physics and biology. Physics gave us a nonliving, accidental, purposeless, and meaningless universe, running down to its heat death by entropy, and biology doomed us to endless struggle in scarcity as nature’s way of evolution—and thus our own human nature. This soulless materialist science scenario must be the most depressing creation story ever told. Yet

our culture has created our reality from it, practicing scientific opposition to religion, believing we must get what we can while we can (usually at someone else’s expense), building a now worldwide win/lose capitalist economy of cutthroat competition, and making material consumption the dominant lifestyle people have or aspire to have. What made us believe this story would lead to the glorious golden age envisioned by the founding fathers of science for more than a handful of people? It suggested exactly what we got: things running down, ravaged environments, failure to eliminate grinding poverty, the continued terror of warfare, and amazing technological things that blind most of us to this overall picture

.

 

You may disagree with her assessment. I happened to agree with it. The assessment is a personal opinion - it can be debated. But... don't miss her point... our western industrialized cultures have created their world view from the scientific creation story. How we view reality matters on a very deep level. And we are living in an age where the cold, heartless, universe is giving way to a holistic universe. Whether the non-local holistic universe is living (or not) is up for debate... but the fact that we are interconnected and ONE on a very deep level is forcing us to rethink the way we interact with each other at a materilistic level. My actions are no longer independent from your actions. What happens in one part of the stream affects the WHOLE living system.

 

The scientific creation story is being rewritten as we debate its validity... time will give us a new scientific creation story. The new story will include Newtonian physics, but Newtonian physics will only be ONE part of a more holistic living story. And what kind of culture we create from that story is up to us....

[Legion]

I would like to here quote the theoretical biologist Dr. Robert Rosen from his extraordinary book Life Itself.

 

... I can epitomize a reductionist approach to organization in general, and to life in particular, as follows: throw away the organization and keep the underlying matter.

 

The relational alternative to this says the exact opposite, namely: when studying an organized material system, throw away the matter and keep the underlying organization.

 

Maybe we could fruitfully explore our various notions of “organization”.

[Shyone]

I would like to here quote the theoretical biologist Dr. Robert Rosen from his extraordinary book Life Itself.

 

... I can epitomize a reductionist approach to organization in general, and to life in particular, as follows: throw away the organization and keep the underlying matter.

 

The relational alternative to this says the exact opposite, namely: when studying an organized material system, throw away the matter and keep the underlying organization.

 

Maybe we could fruitfully explore our various notions of “organization”.

Yep, makes sense to me.

[Rev R]

My apologies for taking so long Hans and AM

 

 

 

Antlerman:

I respect OM as one of those who transcend the norm to the level that ingrates All within the ONE without being overcome by the system itself.

I'll just have to discover that for myself AM.

 

 

Hans:

 

Exactly. I think that's the point I've come to too. It's not about God or not-God anymore to understand the world. Everything that exists is God, and our experience and awareness of the world is the Spirit, and we are the Sons and Daughters of God. That's the trinity.

 

Antlerman:

 

I've come to the place that I feel that some other word besides Nature or Universe is needed. I would not say that "Everything that exists is God." That a straight ahead pantheism, or animism. It would say that the tree is God, that God exists in the Tree. Rather, I would say that the tree is the tree, the rock is the rock, and each is an individual whole, interconnected within a greater whole to the point of infinity, and that each of these are manifest expressions of "God". As such, the Expression of God speaks to its nature, but it is not tree, rock, or the material universe itself. This is looking at, perceiving, and experiencing the external, material universe through the internal world. Expression of X. It is holding the expression and the expressed as One. Not simply a unified chain of external material oneness, but a unity of matter and spirit in the Source.

 

ask "what is real?

what can I trust?"

I can offer one word.

and that word is

"Thus"

 

There is a saying which fits in with this discussion quite well: "Nirvana and Samsara are the same." Samsara is the materialistic view and Nirvana is the "mystical" view. It is not a case of one or the other being correct, quite the contrary. I would suggest that both are simultaneously true, though neither is correct independently. When I wore a younger man's clothes (and hair) and practicing shamanism, my teacher defined a shaman as one who walked between worlds. It wasn't until I fully converted to Zen and began contemplating "Nirvana and Samsara are the same." that I realized what he meant. There are no worlds to travel between, it's a change in how the mind operates. In day to day life the materialist view functions, but for those of us who have broken the "I" we are aware of Nirvana always in the background. We can flip flop back and forth (but hopefully not while we are crossing the street or operating heavy machinery) but we should not cling to either view as being all there is.

 

Krishnamurti was right, truth is formless. There is no "local consciousness vs non-local consciousness". There is no "God vs. Not-God". There is no "mystical view vs materialist view". All of these are concepts, models, dependent views, it is beyond such things. We can't touch it with words, we can't touch it with thought forms, we can't touch it with models and paradigms; all we can do is point toward it. We fight, argue, and debate over phantoms; but this is it as well. When we drop our concepts, our resistances, and our preferences then it becomes clear. To do this requires the "death" of self. Death of the body is scary, death of the self is mind-numbing terror. Until one gets to that point, straight empiricism and good old fashioned common sense is good enough.

 

I can't go any farther with words or else I will start raving like a lunatic.

[Legion]

ask "what is real?

what can I trust?"

I can offer one word.

and that word is

"Thus"

I think this is beautiful.

 

Thanks Rev.

[Open_Minded]

There is a saying which fits in with this discussion quite well: "Nirvana and Samsara are the same." Samsara is the materialistic view and Nirvana is the "mystical" view. It is not a case of one or the other being correct, quite the contrary. I would suggest that both are simultaneously true, though neither is correct independently.

Exactly... this is why I said: http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?/topic/33617-reductionism-and-materialism-are-not-scientific-givens/page__view__findpost__p__491303

Quantum physics may sound like it supports that, but then you have to raise your head from the sub-sub-sub atomic microscope and notice that reality is real and solid even if we know atoms are mostly space.

And there is a third option.... All is ONE.

 

When I wore a younger man's clothes (and hair) and practicing shamanism, my teacher defined a shaman as one who walked between worlds. It wasn't until I fully converted to Zen and began contemplating "Nirvana and Samsara are the same." that I realized what he meant. There are no worlds to travel between, it's a change in how the mind operates. In day to day life the materialist view functions, but for those of us who have broken the "I" we are aware of Nirvana always in the background. We can flip flop back and forth (but hopefully not while we are crossing the street or operating heavy machinery) but we should not cling to either view as being all there is.

It is possible for the paradoxes of formless and formed (or unmanifested and manifested) to unite as one experience, into a UNITY. "All is ONE"

[Legion]

ask "what is real?

what can I trust?"

I can offer one word.

and that word is

"Thus"

I don’t believe it’s quite as good as yours, but I wrote another one in the same vein.

 

I asked a wise man

on a meditation mat

for the root of

understanding

He said,

“this entails that.”

[Rev R]

It is possible for the paradoxes of formless and formed (or unmanifested and manifested) to unite as one experience, into a UNITY. "All is ONE"

Heya OM,

 

uniting perceived paradoxes is creating a model and thus illusion, try reducing the mental obstacles and see what is already there.

 

 

I don’t believe it’s quite as good as yours, but I wrote another one in the same vein.

 

I asked a wise man

on a meditation mat

for the root of

understanding

He said,

“this entails that.”

 

not too shabby Legion.

[Open_Minded]

It is possible for the paradoxes of formless and formed (or unmanifested and manifested) to unite as one experience, into a UNITY. "All is ONE"

Heya OM,

 

uniting perceived paradoxes is creating a model and thus illusion, try reducing the mental obstacles and see what is already there.

 

Hello Rev R....

 

Thre is no "me" uniting anything...

There is no model

There is no illusion

There are no mental obstacles

 

there is only...

Nothingness/Allness ... no relativity.....

 

[Rev R]

 

Hello Rev R....

 

Thre is no "me" uniting anything...

There is no model

There is no illusion

There are no mental obstacles

 

there is only...

Nothingness/Allness ... no relativity.....

 

 

That is almost a friendly challenge.

 

and Rodney is the name

[Open_Minded]

 

Hello Rev R....

 

Thre is no "me" uniting anything...

There is no model

There is no illusion

There are no mental obstacles

 

there is only...

Nothingness/Allness ... no relativity.....

 

 

That is almost a friendly challenge.

 

and Rodney is the name

 

If it was a challenge... it was said while bowing deeply in your general direction.

 

In Peace - O_M

[Legion]

not too shabby Legion.

Thank you Rodney.

 

... creating a model and thus illusion...

I think science is an endeavor to create models. I don’t know what your idea of a model is, but when someone possesses a model of a natural system they are able to accurately predict certain aspects of that system’s behavior. That doesn’t strike me as being akin to illusion.

[Antlerman]

... creating a model and thus illusion...

I think science is an endeavor to create models. I don’t know what your idea of a model is, but when someone possesses a model of a natural system they are able to accurately predict certain aspects of that system’s behavior. That doesn’t strike me as being akin to illusion.

What I believe he is saying that to see non-duality is to not try to understand it, or explain it, but to be it. "Me" is subjective. A model is objective. Even "God" is also Objective - we see God, talk about God, etc. But in non-duality there is neither subject nor object, but ONE/ALL. Source and Manifestation IS. Any model to explain it becomes 'not it'. "God" cannot be known objectively, but subjectively moving into Unity of Subjective and Objective. God is "Not this, not that", Emptiness/ALL.

 

 

(I'll try to catch up with some of this as time permits for me. Busy with work.)

[Legion]

"Me" is subjective. A model is objective.

There seems to be some confusion here about what I am referring to when I say “model” Antlerman. I hope I can explain what I mean. Please don’t let me foul this up.

 

We can measure various aspects of a natural system. I’ve also seen this referred to as an “encoding”. It is essentially a mapping from some phenomena of the natural system into propositions in a formal system. Call this (1).

 

We can reason according to the inferences our formal system allows us to draw. This is essentially a mapping from propositions in our formal system to other propositions in it. Call this (2).

 

We can predict. This is a mapping from our newly created propositions into phenomena of the natural system. It is a decoding. Call this (3).

 

All the while, causality acts on the natural system we are focusing on. Call this (4).

 

When (1) + (2) + (3) = (4) then we have a model. When we sense, reason and predict and this process corresponds with causality then we have an explicit understanding.

 

Causality is objective. Inference is subjective. Thus a model is a relationship between objective and subjective.

 

I hope I did that okay.

[Open_Minded]

There seems to be some confusion here about what I am referring to when I say “model” Antlerman. I hope I can explain what I mean. Please don’t let me foul this up....

I hope I did that okay.

 

Legion - I think the confusion comes not from anything you've said. I get what you mean when speak of "models" in empirical science.

 

Rodney originally directed his comment at me.

 

It is possible for the paradoxes of formless and formed (or unmanifested and manifested) to unite as one experience, into a UNITY. "All is ONE"

Heya OM,

 

uniting perceived paradoxes is creating a model and thus illusion, try reducing the mental obstacles and see what is already there.

 

He and I were allowing ourselves a little friendly back and forth on a different level than the empirical sciences... Sorry, didn't mean to cause confusion, or derail the discussion.

 

And back to the regularly scheduled conversation.