Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Reductionism And Materialism Are Not Scientific Givens


Open_Minded

Recommended Posts

I'm fascinated that you raise intentionality Antlerman - as this is something I've been pondering today as well, from two angles - firstly our use of language that implies intentionality in parts of the universe (whether cells in our bodies, or chemical particles or other life forms lower down the consciousness ladder than ourselves) to the other end where we 'assume' randomness because we see no 'deciding mind' behind the event.

 

We accept that aromas 'move' by diffusion around the world, why not the molecules of emotion?

 

For a long time I was stuck in thinking that it was our brains that generate our thoughts when in fact it seems more likely now that our brains 'interpret' the thoughts or give language to the thoughts ... one of the things I struggle with the most is having any understanding of how my cat 'thinks' without language ... but she clearly does, she watches and works out how to get at what she wants. Right back down through the stages of evoluntionary life, to the tiniest of cells and the tiniest of parts of these cells - the responses include options.

 

If I could sum up what interests me most at the moment, I would say 'spheres of influence' is a common theme that links together my interest in; love, cell structure, the language of management, zietgists, memes, positive thinking, physics, micro chimera, team building, social cohesion, social breakdown, the power of narrative,

 

I find a shared interest in many of the topics that also fall under the umbrella of new age thinking, But I understand the reticence of some lone voices here who see the wacky supernatural parts of new age and are put off. There is lots that puts me off too ...

 

I have just found that nothing is as concrete as I have for so many years believed and I understand a little more the mystic who speaks of us all being connected, all one, that the gaps between us are, the lines around the space we think there is a 'Me' to occupy is the 'membrane around the cell' of two decades ago - when in fact there is something much more complicated and connected going on between us all.

 

(and I know this last paragraph wil sound like gobbledegook to some of you and leave you wondering what Alice is on!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(side note - so good to see so many of my favorite people in one thread I don't stop by so often these days, but very glad I did yesterday, what a great topic and here's to the power of love )

 

The reunion is wonderful.... isn't it:)

 

It's been awhile since I've been on board and seeing so many wonderful people in the same place, enjoying the same feast.... is a treat. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

A good friend of mine had a section of his brain removed following a car accident. Who he was, the person I knew, who had been a doctor actually, was now this almost infant-like human in a bed who on good days would play patty-cake with you. Extremely sad, but it left me with the thought of where is my friend? Who he was was now gone. For all intents and purposes he had died except for his body and a now simple functional mind.

 

But I would argue that that spirit of us is not the developed personalities, nor the physical bodies in which we manifest it. Our personalities are expressions of it, not the definition of it.

This is indeed tragic, and I grieve for your friend's loss, his family's loss, and yours.

 

I don't understand what you mean by spirit in this case, but I'll leave it at that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How does one observe:

 

  1. The moment of the Big Bang
  2. What was "before" the Big Bang
  3. A multi-verse
  4. A non-local consciousness
  5. A non-local anything

 

The same way we "observe" the climate during the Pleistocene era, or the eating habits of the Woolly Mammoth, or anything else which occurred during pre-history: we observe the remnants of the original phenomenon, develop hypotheses based on extrapolation, devise ways to test these hypotheses (if X happened then we should observe Y today), and refine the hypotheses based on the outcome of our testing.

 

Continue researching, add new data, wash, rinse, repeat.

 

It's true that the mathematical models of the Big Bang are far more complex than the models of radioactive isotope decay in fossils, but the process is essentially the same. It's also helpful to keep in mind the fact that all you need to do in order to see millions of years into the past is go outside at night. Those lights you see in the sky? Some of that light left another galaxy a few million years ago. That means that what we see now is actually what happened a few million years ago.

 

With space telescopes, we can see 13 billion years into the past. That number will keep growing with the next generation of space telescopes. It's not mere speculation. And moving into the realm of the unknown is what scientific exploration is all about. We go there so that it might become the realm of the known.

 

Hello Davka:

 

You are right, the light we receive from space is a literally picture of the universes ancient history....

 

But... as to the mathmatical models.... what I meant when I observed that science is moving into uncharted terrritory is simply that at some point the mathmatical models must give way to imperical data. That is becoming harder and harder to do. That's all I was observing.

 

It's a wonderful problem to have, if you think about it. Uncharted territory is where the adventure usually begins..... right..... :grin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

With space telescopes, we can see 13 billion years into the past. That number will keep growing with the next generation of space telescopes. It's not mere speculation. And moving into the realm of the unknown is what scientific exploration is all about. We go there so that it might become the realm of the known.

This is so frickin' weird. The universe is, by the best estimates currently, about 13.7 billion years old. I have a hunch that we will soon be looking 14, 15, 16, and maybe even 30 or 50 billion years into the past.

 

WTF.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

I think Davka has responded rather well to some questions asked in response to my posting. I'll basically agree with him rather than repeat everything.

 

One point I will address is the assumption that scientists are somehow unwilling to peer outside their little preconception boxes. No doubt some researchers and scientists are inherently dogmatic and would never consider new ideas. Others have investigated many of the extraordinary claims hoping to find a new direction in which to study, only to find they have no merit. There are, and have been, many scientists who venture outside reductionism only to return after finding nothing.

 

The anti-reductionist folks assume or propose the existence of many varied phenomena. It's not a cohesive or homogenous school, and if I address a particular issue it's likely a given anti-reductionist will say, "Oh, I never said I believed THAT." Given a model of the universe that is dependent upon undiscoverable forces and non-local intelligence - a mind that exists and functions independently of the brain - almost anything should be possible, but nobody wants to own up to certain beliefs that are implied by taking that position.

 

If you believe that hard science, the reductionist view, isn't sufficient to achieve progress and understanding, you are making an assumption on a feeling that since there are mysteries remaining we need to consider the existence of all sorts of "supernatural" things (god of the gaps). I don't think "supernatural" is necessarily the best word but someone will take issue with any choice they deem to have a negative connotation; mystical, metaphysical, other-worldly, spiritual, magical.

 

I would love to believe in magic. Who wouldn't want to continue consciousness after body death? Who doesn't want to alter reality with a mere thought? Certainly, it would be nice to be able to read minds. Healing a loved one with only your thoughts, priceless. All these things should be possible if the reductionist view is wrong or incomplete. Probably everyone feels, at least at times, spiritual, connected, a part of a creative spark. Sometimes we feel immortal, as if we'll still be around after death to look after our loved ones. We imagine the dearly departed are still with us somehow. We often feel there is more to life than is apparent, and it's an empowering feeling. Those emotions, however, don't necessarily point to reality.

 

All those things have been exhaustively studied for decades. Every time a new study is announced, the hopes we have for a magical world breathe new life. Unfortunately, historically each breakthrough study eventually falls apart under scrutiny. Should science study such things? Of course, but after years of experimentation, maybe we should just accept the results rather than design new tests in hopes that they just might show the earlier conclusions were wrong.

 

There was a point where I would embrace the smallest scrap of flawed evidence to support my belief in, let's call it "a world beyond reductionism." I have always been prepared to believe, I just need real evidence these days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If you believe that hard science, the reductionist view, isn't sufficient to achieve progress and understanding, you are making an assumption on a feeling that since there are mysteries remaining we need to consider the existence of all sorts of "supernatural" things (god of the gaps). I don't think "supernatural" is necessarily the best word but someone will take issue with any choice they deem to have a negative connotation; mystical, metaphysical, other-worldly, spiritual, magical.

I think that many people opposed to reductionism have tried to create a straw man rather than consider "reductionism" as a part of the greater synthesis and understanding of the universe.

 

For example, an atom of hydrogen is very interesting. Proton, electron, energy, etc. But that then makes gas with several, and then mass, and then stars and with fusion elements and planets and galaxies.

 

From the tiny to the immense; that is the goal of science, and while one may start at the larger end, there is no reason not to start at the tiny end - and the two ends work towards the middle with the goal of complete understanding.

 

Reductionism is not an end. It is a beginning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

There was a point where I would embrace the smallest scrap of flawed evidence to support my belief in, let's call it "a world beyond reductionism." I have always been prepared to believe, I just need real evidence these days.

 

Are assumptions about people being anti or pro reductionism useful? Across the intricate and interconnecting web from the concrete to the abstract - we are all comfortable on our own particular grid reference. One would hope that our scientific pioneers occupy locations beyond our comfort zones and that they keep exploring the outer regions beyond that which we think we know.

 

I wouldn't want to believe in magic and I'd hate to be able to read someone else's private thoughts, however ability to influence others carries overwhelming potential for good and for evil and responsibility to match - this has been around for as long as existence.

 

Sometimes we are not going to see the evidence or have the evidence until we change the way we think ...

 

Now I know that this is not an analogy that stands up to disection and I mean this in a lght hearted way, and just to illustrate that just because something is believed to be a certain way, doesn't mean it 'should be' nor that it need remain so.

 

Once upon a time ... someone said ...

 

'I would love to believe that women are capable of the same intellectual feats as men (I would love to believe in magic) Who wouldn't warm to the idea of being to converse with a woman as though she was as intelligent as a man (Who wouldn't want to continue consciousness after body death?) Who wouldn't want to see women following their dreams and having the same opportunities as men? (Who doesn't want to alter reality with a mere thought?) Certainly it would be nice to see women holding positions of leadership nad responsibility (Certainly, it would be nice to be able to read minds) A women president, prceless (Healing a loved one with only your thoughts, priceless) All these things should be possible if the current beleif that men are superiour to women is wrong or incomplete. (All these things should be possible if the reductionist view is wrong or incomplete) Probably everyone feels, at least at times, that women have potential, have noticed a creative spark (Probably everyone feels, at least at times, spiritual, connected, a part of a creative spark) Sometimes we might even have felt equals with the women we love and as if they don't actually need a man to look after them (Sometimes we feel immortal, as if we'll still be around after death to look after our loved ones) We imagine that they are our equals even now somehow (We imagine the dearly departed are still with us somehow) WE often feel that there should be more to their lives than is apparent right now and its a good feeling (We often feel there is more to life than is apparent, and it's an empowering feeling.) Those emotions however don't necessarily point to reality. (Those emotions, however, don't necessarily point to reality)'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What does the brain "tune into"?

Entailments, dependent arisings

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

What you are turning off here is the easy questions such as AI would produce or "zombies". It's the experience of things that can't be explained by reductionist/materialist view alone.

 

When these people wake up, why are they not just like AI or unfeeling zombies, or better yet, Data on Star Trek? What does the brain "tune into"?

Why are you belittling AI? I happen to think that AI will produce more complexity, more intelligence, and more philosophy than humans ever have. We may witness intelligence and emotion orders of magnitude greater than our puny human brains are capable of expressing.

 

I can almost tell you when it will happen. Just as humans are smarter than apes which are smarter than dogs which are smarter than birds which are smarter than mice (etc.), computers will achieve that threshhold of computational capacity that allows for awareness, life and conciousness.

Why are you belittling humanity?

 

I feel that will never happen, but what do I know? Have you hugged your computer lately? :P:HaHa:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that many people opposed to reductionism have tried to create a straw man rather than consider "reductionism" as a part of the greater synthesis and understanding of the universe.

I agree with this to a large extent Shyone. I believe that we must not discard reductionism, but rather see it as one tool in the shed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK you got me????? What happens at 1666 posts?????? :shrug:

My jokes are falling flat aren't they! Damn good thing I'm not a comedian...I'd be starving! :HaHa:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just read this this morning and wanted to share this here. It's from the philosopher Ken Wilber (who by the way, is hardly New Age, in case someone should choose to dismiss through labeling him). This is from pages, 386, 387 of Sex, Ecology, Spirituality:

The hermeneutics of any worldspace is closed and perfectly evidential for that worldspace. No new interpretation will step outside the worldspace. Rather, a developmental supersession will suddenly, via emergence, disclose new depths and wider perceptions that themselves pass judgment on yesterday’s relative blindness. It is transformation that negates the old translations, and not anything the translations themselves could see from within their own horizons (and bad interpretations
within
those relatively true horizons can be, and are, soundly rejected by the evidence that the eyes of that structure
can
see, and see quite clearly, as far as it goes).

 

Likewise, Reason also imagines that
its
evidence is simply
the
evidence, obvious and incontrovertible per se (i.e., its
type
of evidence is likewise stamped with “unchallengeableness”). Bad interpretations
within
its rational horizon (which also means within its structural worldspace) will be soundly rebuffed from within that horizon by the community of those whose eyes can see the depths disclosed by rationality. Interpretations from the transrational structures will not be rebuffed: they will simply not be
seen
in the first place, and thus will be met with the standard “What, are you crazy?” (which is not a rebuff but a retreat).

 

But the evidence disclosed by rationality will indeed be able to outcontextualize, and thus outtrump, the evidence disclosed within the horizons and structures of mythic awareness (just as mythic masterfully outtrumped and outcontextualized magic). It is not that a greater and absolute truth (no epoch lives, or can live, simply on falsehoods). And this is what the Age of Enlightenment brought to bear upon the Age of Myth: a new horizon of evidence that outcontextualized the old.

 

And outcontextualize, it did indeed. We tend to forget the evidence that the mythic worldspace took to be perfectly obvious. Here is one of the widely accepted “refutations” of Galileo’s discovery of the moons of Jupiter: “ There are seven windows given to animals in the domicile of the head, through with the air is admitted to the tabernacle of the body, to enlighten, to warm and to nourish it. What are these parts of the
microcosm
? Two nostrils, two eyes, two ears, and a mouth. So in the heavens, as in a
macrocosmos
, there are two favorable stars, two unpropitious, two luminaries, and Mercury undecided and indifferent. From this and many other similarities in nature, such as the seven metals, etc., which it were tedious to enumerate, we gather that the number of planets is necessarily seven.”

 

That is an excellent and very
accurate
description of the insides of the mythological worldspace, where syncretic wholes define the nature of interconnectivity in the Kosmos
as disclosed at that depth
. Rationality can explain the interconnectivity from a deeper dimension, and thus marshal more
types
of evidence, but rationality is not itself operating from the final Archimedian point of all possible worlds.

What I find extraordinary revealing is that at every point in our evolution, we had a working system of looking at the world. It was never 'wrong', but contextually right. They operated off logic and reason as we do, yet that system gave way to a higher system - out of evolutionary necessity. This ties into my quote in my signature that says "What we are, that only can we see." How is it that when you present the types of evidence from the rational worldspace to those in the mythic worldspace, they are 'blind' to what you are saying? Yet from their point of view, they in fact are quite rational.

 

I think the last line is important, that "rationality is not itself operating from the final Archimedian point of all possible worlds." Our types of evidence are within our current stage of understanding, just as logical and rational as theirs was at theirs. We would not have survived if it wasn't. But at each stage, as Mythic overtook Magic, they imagined themselves at the pinnacle of enlightenment. As Wilber says so well of Modernity, that it says "No more myth! No more Ascent" - that is "Ascend to Reason and no further."" Each stage of necessity imagines its worldview the enlightened one. Myth made more sense than Magic. Reason makes more sense than Myth, and so on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have just found that nothing is as concrete as I have for so many years believed and I understand a little more the mystic who speaks of us all being connected, all one, that the gaps between us are, the lines around the space we think there is a 'Me' to occupy is the 'membrane around the cell' of two decades ago - when in fact there is something much more complicated and connected going on between us all.

 

(and I know this last paragraph wil sound like gobbledegook to some of you and leave you wondering what Alice is on!)

I find that fasinating and your explanation about the cells' communication was great. I didn't know this. Science seems to be able to admit that there is much more going on than what appears to be. We can't just continue to look at half the picture.

 

Speaking of animals...I love watching the Dog Whisperer. He knows that dogs can sense energy, and if we think about it, we can too. We may not realize what has happened, but when a person walks into a room that is angry, we pretty much can feel the "vibes", I think anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I think the last line is important, that "rationality is not itself operating from the final Archimedian point of all possible worlds." Our types of evidence are within our current stage of understanding, just as logical and rational as theirs was at theirs. We would not have survived if it wasn't. But at each stage, as Mythic overtook Magic, they imagined themselves at the pinnacle of enlightenment. As Wilber says so well of Modernity, that it says "No more myth! No more Ascent" - that is "Ascend to Reason and no further."" Each stage of necessity imagines its worldview the enlightened one. Myth made more sense than Magic. Reason makes more sense than Myth, and so on.

Two things; first, that which is not rational is irrational, that which is not reasonable is unreasonable.

 

Second, To the extent that previous "systems" have used rationally and have been self correcting, there is nothing wrong with the approach and we stand now on their shoulders, even if we totally discard their initial conclusions. The problems have occurred because people tried to cement knowledge into place while the methods for obtaining knowledge were still evolving. That is called religion.

 

There is nothing wrong with geometry, and even ancient "observations" were not wrong. Conclusions about how things work, such as the relationships of the celestial bodies, were incorrect, but to the extent that the system was allowed to work, the hypotheses changed to fit the data and the results are self correcting.

 

A worldview that is static and disallows correction is a hindrance to learning, but a worldview that builds upon evidence and looks for error is intrinsically self correcting. It is not that one worldview is superior to another, but that worldviews yield to superior worldviews when the evidence demonstrates that superiority.

 

It would be silly to attempt to return to a worldview that has been superceded because of the triumph of a succeeding worldview.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of my favorite people are participating in this thread and it is an absolute delight to see you guys speaking with each other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't got a whole lot to contribute since a lot of this is way over my head, but I really have enjoyed this thread!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What does the brain "tune into"?

Entailments, dependent arisings

I know it’s bad form to respond to your own post but I want to expand on my bold assertion here.

 

Consider the following statements of entailment...

 

If we understand our enemies then we are better prepared to defeat them.

 

If I scrape the butter from the toast then Pi is approximately 3.14.

 

Which one do you “tune-in to”? Jump in here anywhere Deva!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Should science study such things? Of course, but after years of experimentation, maybe we should just accept the results rather than design new tests in hopes that they just might show the earlier conclusions were wrong.

 

There was a point where I would embrace the smallest scrap of flawed evidence to support my belief in, let's call it "a world beyond reductionism." I have always been prepared to believe, I just need real evidence these days.

 

Hello Florduh….

 

As mentioned before … I am quite willing to let science settle the debate. But allowing science to settle the debate means paying attention to science. The OP article we are discussing mentioned the following…..

 

Three dozen double blind, randomized studies by such institutions as the University of Washington and the University of Edinburgh have reported similar results.
Do feel free to find rebutting scientific articles. I’d be interested in reading them. :shrug:

 

In addition, the OP study is not the only study in this area. Following is information about a few more studies – that I was able to find with a simple web search…

 

 

Again – let’s let science lead the way on this – after all what is there to fear????

 

You mention …

 

I would love to believe in magic. Who wouldn't want to continue consciousness after body death? Who doesn't want to alter reality with a mere thought? Certainly, it would be nice to be able to read minds. Healing a loved one with only your thoughts, priceless. All these things should be possible if the reductionist view is wrong or incomplete. Probably everyone feels, at least at times, spiritual, connected, a part of a creative spark. Sometimes we feel immortal, as if we'll still be around after death to look after our loved ones. We imagine the dearly departed are still with us somehow. We often feel there is more to life than is apparent, and it's an empowering feeling. Those emotions, however, don't necessarily point to reality.

 

Why is believing in consciousness after bodily death considered “magic”…. ??? If it is natural… then it is not magic.

 

Why is altering our reality with thought considered magic? We alter our personal realities all the time with thought. Just our personal lives alone are concrete evidence of our personal thought processes.

 

In addition – it is well known that human observation impacts experimental outcome on a quantum level.

 

Are these two ways of altering reality with our thought processes magic?

 

No one here ever said it was possible to heal a loved one with “only your thoughts”. I’ve never operated under that assumption at all. I’ve lost too many loved ones and am too grateful to modern medicine and technology for giving me a few more years with other loved ones. But, it is not magic to believe (especially given that deep reality is quantum in nature) that our love for others is one tool among many for healing.

 

It’s not magic to have the views we are discussing in this thread, Florduh. It is a willingness to live with reality as we know it as well as a sense of openness to possibilities yet to be fully explored. It is the willingness to let these two aspects of reality (what we currently know and can prove empirically and what we are continually discovering) side-by-side. They don’t have to be in conflict with one and other. :shrug:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two things; first, that which is not rational is irrational, that which is not reasonable is unreasonable.

 

AM is reading Wilber's book from which this quote below is taken. I finished listening to his CD's Kosmic Consciousness this morning. :phew:

 

For most of the recent modern era, and certainly since Freud (and Marx and Ludwig Feuerbach), the reductionist stance toward spirituality has prevailed - all spiritual experiences, no matter how highly developed they might in fact be, were simply interpreted as regressions to primitive and infantile modes of thought. However, as if in overreaction to all that, we are now, and have been since the sixties, in the throes of various forms of elevationism (exemplified by, but by no means confined to, the New Age movement). All sorts of endeavors, of no matter what origin or of what authenticity, are simply elevated to transrational and spiritual glory, and the only qualification for this wonderful promotion is that the endeavor be nonrational. Anything rational is wrong; anything nonrational is spiritual.

 

Spirit is indeed nonrational; but it is trans, not pre. It transcends but includes reason; it does not regress and exclude it. Reason, like any particular stage of evolution, has its own (and often devastating) limitations, repressions, and distortions. But as we have seen, the inherent problems of one level are solved (or "defused") only at the next level of development; they are not solved by regressing to a previous level where the problem can be merely ignored. And so it is with the wonders and the terrors of reason: it brings enormous new capacities and new solutions, while introducing its own specific problems, problems solved only by a transcendence to the higher and transrational realms.

The Pre/Trans Fallacy quoted from SEX, ECOLOGY, SPIRITUALITY by Ken Wilber.

This is evolution. Each level will always include the prior level because each level has some truth to it.

 

Second, To the extent that previous "systems" have used rationally and have been self correcting, there is nothing wrong with the approach and we stand now on their shoulders, even if we totally discard their initial conclusions. The problems have occurred because people tried to cement knowledge into place while the methods for obtaining knowledge were still evolving. That is called religion.

 

There is nothing wrong with geometry, and even ancient "observations" were not wrong. Conclusions about how things work, such as the relationships of the celestial bodies, were incorrect, but to the extent that the system was allowed to work, the hypotheses changed to fit the data and the results are self correcting.

 

A worldview that is static and disallows correction is a hindrance to learning, but a worldview that builds upon evidence and looks for error is intrinsically self correcting. It is not that one worldview is superior to another, but that worldviews yield to superior worldviews when the evidence demonstrates that superiority.

 

It would be silly to attempt to return to a worldview that has been superceded because of the triumph of a succeeding worldview.

After reading your post, I don't see any disagreement with what you are saying. Am I misunderstanding you? :HaHa:

 

:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Consider the following statements of entailment...

 

If we understand our enemies then we are better prepared to defeat them.

 

If I scrape the butter from the toast then Pi is approximately 3.14.

 

Which one do you “tune-in to”? Jump in here anywhere Deva!

 

:lmao: You are a funny guy, Legion.

 

Actually, OpenMinded seems to be saying most of what I would want to - and better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:lmao: You are a funny guy, Legion.

:scratch::grin: Well thank you Deva. I think humor often implies some truths.

 

Actually, OpenMinded seems to be saying most of what I would want to - and better.

I agree that OM is making a fairly sound case. I'm not sure that I completely agree with her about what the alternative is to reductionism. I think the alternative to reductionism is called relational science. And I further suspect that some pioneers in this field were Nicolas Rashevsky and Robert Rosen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I think the last line is important, that "rationality is not itself operating from the final Archimedian point of all possible worlds." Our types of evidence are within our current stage of understanding, just as logical and rational as theirs was at theirs. We would not have survived if it wasn't. But at each stage, as Mythic overtook Magic, they imagined themselves at the pinnacle of enlightenment. As Wilber says so well of Modernity, that it says "No more myth! No more Ascent" - that is "Ascend to Reason and no further."" Each stage of necessity imagines its worldview the enlightened one. Myth made more sense than Magic. Reason makes more sense than Myth, and so on.

Two things; first, that which is not rational is irrational, that which is not reasonable is unreasonable.

Not so. It is not one or the other. I make a distinction between rational, irrational, and nonrational. Irrationality goes against reason, nonrational does not use reason as its basis. Likewise between reason and reasonable. The problem I see is that 'rationalists' elevate reason to the point of being unreasonable. Whereas Reason, with a capital R, would embrace the rational and nonrational together and transcend either the left or right hand as 'the way'. In this way, rationality denying the nonrational is itself irrational, and unreasonable.

 

Second, To the extent that previous "systems" have used rationally and have been self correcting, there is nothing wrong with the approach and we stand now on their shoulders, even if we totally discard their initial conclusions.

It's not just a matter of discarding conclusions, its a matter of discarding the baby with the bathwater. It's rejecting and discarding the paths, the focus, entirely in favor of a new focus. I've been reading about Plotinus recently and the paths of Ascent and Descent. His philosophy, considered to be the best interpreter of Plato, brought together the path of Ascent and Descent (to God and from God) in a non-dual way (God as Source and Summit). The Church stripped away the path of Descent (God into the world) in favor of Ascent (the world to God), rejecting the world in favor of the spiritual pursuit. As it gained dominance over the social space, this was the focus, and any and all that challenged it were persecuted without mercy.

 

As the Enlightenment came, we overthrew the mythic controllers in favor of the path of Descent. Descent meant not that we weren't growing, but that our worldviews, our methods, took on the 'this worldly' focus. No longer looking to the heavens, we looked to the natural world and reason as the ground of Truth. What happened was a rejection of anything that smacked of the Ascender's thoughts, of man's reconciliation or ascent to God. And then the ensuing backlashes of upheaval of one system for another. The Ascender's had rejected this world for God, and the Descenders rejected God for this world. Each were a broken leg in the circle of Ascent and Descent (to God as Source and from God as Ground).

 

So is it a matter of rejecting 'conclusions', or flipping the coin over and taking another path? Again, not 'down' in the sense of regression - I don't mean that. But downward facing - the external world.

 

The problems have occurred because people tried to cement knowledge into place while the methods for obtaining knowledge were still evolving. That is called religion.

And this is why many people consider reductionism and materialism to be a religious view. Yes dogma occurred in the mythic world, just as it occurs here. But my greater point was that it's the whole approach that makes it hard to shift. It's not just cementing ideas and biases - it's being stuck within the paradigm itself. It's the shifts of paradigms that are exceedingly difficult to occur. It's not a matter of dogmas within the paradigms.

 

There is nothing wrong with geometry, and even ancient "observations" were not wrong. Conclusions about how things work, such as the relationships of the celestial bodies, were incorrect, but to the extent that the system was allowed to work, the hypotheses changed to fit the data and the results are self correcting.

I'm not talking about individuals whose finding matched with how we see things, I'm speaking of the worldspace itself, the general paradigm the "center of social gravity". As Wilber puts it, "The 'emergence of Reason', and the 'Age of Reason' does not mean that individuals prior to this time had no access to rationality.".... "Rather the 'Age of Reason' simply means that access to the space of reason was now common enough that the 'center of social gravity' - the basic organizing principles of society - shifted from mythic-rational to rational structures (as evidence legally, politically, institutionally), with, again, some people falling below the norm, others above it" (pg 385).

 

This is not simply a case of "self correcting". It is one of developmental stages, of emergence. This would be like saying Evolution is 'self correction'. It's not. Self correction only occurs within that level. This is emergence, a new level - in the social worldspace. Hence why that is comparable at this stage to the formal operation stage of development in a human individual. Same stages, different space.

 

A worldview that is static and disallows correction is a hindrance to learning, but a worldview that builds upon evidence and looks for error is intrinsically self correcting. It is not that one worldview is superior to another, but that worldviews yield to superior worldviews when the evidence demonstrates that superiority.

If we're talking about evolution, emergence to new levels, then yes it is superior. Imagine if you as an adult still thought shadows were following you because the world was attached to you magically, like a 5 year old would? Now that you are able to separate it out from you through higher stages of cognitive development, doesn't that offer you a deeper and higher perspective of your world, and hence allow you to go to much greater depths and heights? Think the same for our social worldspace. Seeing the world in that space in the same sorts of representational forms comparable to those of individual human development, would likewise offer higher and deeper and wider perspective, and hence be considered superior.

 

The difficulty is that as we move into those stages, the transitions are never easy. We ultimately have to find a way to build on those stages of our individual and social developments - not by rejecting and attempting to eradicate them in favor of a new paradigm, but through incorporating and deepening them into a new, emergent level.

 

It would be silly to attempt to return to a worldview that has been superceded because of the triumph of a succeeding worldview.

It would be, and no one here is suggesting that. Certainly not me. But at the same time, as my point was, it is likewise silly to assume that this level is the last, or that it itself is complete at this level for this level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

AM is reading Wilber's book from which this quote below is taken. I finished listening to his CD's Kosmic Consciousness this morning. :phew:

 

For most of the recent modern era, and certainly since Freud (and Marx and Ludwig Feuerbach), the reductionist stance toward spirituality has prevailed - all spiritual experiences, no matter how highly developed they might in fact be, were simply interpreted as regressions to primitive and infantile modes of thought. However, as if in overreaction to all that, we are now, and have been since the sixties, in the throes of various forms of elevationism (exemplified by, but by no means confined to, the New Age movement). All sorts of endeavors, of no matter what origin or of what authenticity, are simply elevated to transrational and spiritual glory, and the only qualification for this wonderful promotion is that the endeavor be nonrational. Anything rational is wrong; anything nonrational is spiritual.

 

Spirit is indeed nonrational; but it is trans, not pre. It transcends but includes reason; it does not regress and exclude it. Reason, like any particular stage of evolution, has its own (and often devastating) limitations, repressions, and distortions. But as we have seen, the inherent problems of one level are solved (or "defused") only at the next level of development; they are not solved by regressing to a previous level where the problem can be merely ignored. And so it is with the wonders and the terrors of reason: it brings enormous new capacities and new solutions, while introducing its own specific problems, problems solved only by a transcendence to the higher and transrational realms.

The Pre/Trans Fallacy quoted from SEX, ECOLOGY, SPIRITUALITY by Ken Wilber.

This is evolution. Each level will always include the prior level because each level has some truth to it.

 

He's a really smart guy, but the words sound like "gobbledygook." My spell checker rejects "transrational", "nonrational" and "elevationism." So do I.

 

A very smart man whose book I read long ago said something I'll never forget: Reason is all there is. If there is not reason, whatever else can be said, it is unreasonable. The opposites of reason are faith and ignorance.

 

If something appears to be unreasonable (or "nonrational") then we don't understand it, or it is just wrong.

 

 

After reading your post, I don't see any disagreement with what you are saying. Am I misunderstanding you? :HaHa:

 

:D

Now, that's a tough one...

 

In brief, I was saying that human knowledge has grown by gradual progression with some fits and starts. There is no shame in making mistakes or being mistaken. The shame is refusing to consider that one might be mistaken.

 

On the other hand, roads that lead nowhere are dead ends, and until there is verifiable evidence that is acceptable to everyone that there are "psychic phenomena" or "nonrational processes", the available evidence leads me to think the world is exactly as science depicts it - complicated, weird, and perfectly understandable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... the available evidence leads me to think the world is exactly as science depicts it - complicated, weird, and perfectly understandable.

Again I agree with you Shyone. I probably would have used the word “complex” instead of “complicated”. I know some scientists who use these different words to label very distinct things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.