Antlerman Posted February 26, 2012 Share Posted February 26, 2012 I believe the brain to be the "final frontier" and the physical reality of what is called spirit. Thou art closer to the truth than thou canst imagine. It's just that what goes on inside the mind is not physical. Just take what goes on inside the mind and kick it up one more notch. That's the spiritual. You want to explore the interior spaces? Then you are on the path towards the spiritual. You're just hung up on the mythological understandings of disembodied, external whatnots. That's where you are stuck, and where you fail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deva Posted February 26, 2012 Share Posted February 26, 2012 However, when those here who prefer the humanities over the sciences do not also recognize the power and legitimacy of science, I feel slighted. And I am tempted to remove my public advocacy of the humanities. I am not very happy with this statement, Legion. Quite frankly, I am restraining myself because I know you aren't like this all the time. Why does this bother you? Seems perfectly legit to me other than the temptation to withdraw support of humanities, which is a personal decision. I don't even see AM having a problem with this statement. It seems to line up well with his position as I understand it. Viglie, I have a lot of respect for you and I like you. Please accept that I just don't want to pursue this matter further. Legion can and will do what he wants to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
par4dcourse Posted February 26, 2012 Share Posted February 26, 2012 Viglie, I have a lot of respect for you and I like you. Please accept that I just don't want to pursue this matter further. Legion can and will do what he wants to do. A very Zen thought and I agree. No mas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted February 26, 2012 Author Share Posted February 26, 2012 Well A-man, it seems we have achieved an unusual unity here. Who would have thought that Par and Deva would have teamed up like this? A Buddhist and a... uh... a guy who indulges in a bit of ultra-violence . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted February 26, 2012 Share Posted February 26, 2012 Par is a closeted believer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted February 26, 2012 Author Share Posted February 26, 2012 Par is a closeted believer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noggy Posted February 26, 2012 Share Posted February 26, 2012 I want someone to point me out a logical argument for why science is better than humanities. I want someone to point out a logical argument for why humanities is better than science. And then I want someone to point out a logical argument that proves logic false. Then I want you to think about that for a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted February 26, 2012 Share Posted February 26, 2012 However, when those here who prefer the humanities over the sciences do not also recognize the power and legitimacy of science, I feel slighted. And I am tempted to remove my public advocacy of the humanities. I am not very happy with this statement, Legion. Quite frankly, I am restraining myself because I know you aren't like this all the time. Why does this bother you? Seems perfectly legit to me other than the temptation to withdraw support of humanities, which is a personal decision. I don't even see AM having a problem with this statement. It seems to line up well with his position as I understand it. Viglie, I have a lot of respect for you and I like you. Please accept that I just don't want to pursue this matter further. Legion can and will do what he wants to do. Ok, I was just curious. No problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted February 26, 2012 Share Posted February 26, 2012 I want someone to point me out a logical argument for why science is better than humanities. I want someone to point out a logical argument for why humanities is better than science. And then I want someone to point out a logical argument that proves logic false. Then I want you to think about that for a bit. Science is better equipped to penetrate an understanding the natural world. Philosophy and psychology are better at penetrating an understanding human nature. Contemplation is better at penetrating an understanding of a spiritual nature. It is my belief that those who take science (in the narrow sense of the sensory-empirical examination of the material world), and try to make it the ultimate source of understanding into the humanities, and/or into the spiritual domains, are trying to simplify life to give nice, clean answers in much the same way as saying Goddidit from the mythological systems point of view. Instead of the Bible, we now have Science. Same role, same fallacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted February 26, 2012 Author Share Posted February 26, 2012 Science is better equipped to penetrate an understanding the natural world. Philosophy and psychology are better at penetrating an understanding human nature. Contemplation is better at penetrating an understanding of a spiritual nature. I essentially agree with this. I think the method of acquiring understanding is dependent upon what it is we wish to understand. It is my belief that those who take science (in the narrow sense of the sensory-empirical examination of the material world), and try to make it the ultimate source of understanding into the humanities, and/or into the spiritual domains, are trying to simplify life to give nice, clean answers in much the same way as saying Goddidit from the mythological systems point of view. Instead of the Bible, we now have Science. Same role, same fallacy. I agree that some do this. And it seems that some scientists (cough, Dawkins, cough) are more than willing to play the role of science priest. I don't believe any one method of discovery is capable of draining the infinite ocean of understanding which inhers in reality. I think open minded people are open minded both about the potential for gain and the method of gaining. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted February 26, 2012 Share Posted February 26, 2012 I don't believe any one method of discovery is capable of draining the infinite ocean of understanding which inhers in reality. I think open minded people are open minded both about the potential for gain and the method of gaining. I very much agree with this. To me a well-rounded person is advanced when they have not only a rational scientific understanding, but a full rich, rounded humanity. For instance, to be nothing but some meditator diving headlong into the transcendent, transrational domains without having a grounding in the humanities or the natural sciences is an unbalanced affair. Having a solid scientific understanding of our natural world enhances that. As it says in the Upanishads, "Earth is His footing". Science however doesn't tell you what the content of those 'higher' spaces are, though it can offer support to one within those spaces. It's the difference between tools of knowledge and objects of faith. Science as a tool of knowledge of the natural world is the best tool we have to date. The error is to presume that what we learn of the world there, now trumps all other modes of knowing in the other domains. You can see that spiritual experience, for instance registers in the brain. But to say, "it's just the brain" tells you absolutely nothing about the knowledge imparted through the experience. Of course it occurs in the brain. So does love. Since when does anyone examine love as a human by examining your lover's brain matter? You can examine things like the spiritual objectively by the effects it has on someone: reduced stress, increased cognitive abilities, etc, but understanding matters of quality and all the intangible effects spread out into all areas of that individual's life can only be penetrated by interview and historical interpretation using the tools of the mind. To actually realize the actual content of the experience itself, there is only one way and that is to experience it first hand. Without that, for one domain to pass judgment lacking that first hand experience, is to say the least, totally unscientific. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted February 26, 2012 Author Share Posted February 26, 2012 As it says in the Upanishads, "Earth is His footing". And I have always moved from the Earth to the sky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted February 26, 2012 Share Posted February 26, 2012 I agree that some do this. And it seems that some scientists (cough, Dawkins, cough) are more than willing to play the role of science priest. Hey! It's not Monday yet! Science priest, now that's funny. I don't believe any one method of discovery is capable of draining the infinite ocean of understanding which inhers in reality. I think open minded people are open minded both about the potential for gain and the method of gaining. Agree. Different tools for different purposes. A screw driver isn't "better" than a hammer. It all depends on if it's a screw or a nail that I'm about to take on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted February 26, 2012 Share Posted February 26, 2012 As it says in the Upanishads, "Earth is His footing". And I have always moved from the Earth to the sky. And the Beauty is then when there, to move from the Sky to the Earth. Ascension and descension. From the many to the One; from the One to the many. To me all our knowledge is towards this end and beginning. Shame to sever that in ourselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev R Posted February 26, 2012 Share Posted February 26, 2012 This is a problem of creating a disease in order to market a cure. In any of these discussions of unity between science and spirituality, it is always the side of "Science" that is suggested to be the one to capitualte to the spiritual. So the first question I ask is why should the "side of science" roll over to a transcendent spirituality when the argument offers nothing to them? Perhaps all this "new paradigm" talk is a red herring and what needs to change is how we speak of such things. It does no one any favours to refer to people as "delusional" or compare them to fundamentalists- everyone is guilty of that. We have been conditioned to think that this is an acceptable way to discuss such matters. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted February 26, 2012 Author Share Posted February 26, 2012 This is a problem of creating a disease in order to market a cure. Could you expand on this view? I'd like to understand it better. In any of these discussions of unity between science and spirituality, it is always the side of "Science" that is suggested to be the one to capitualte to the spiritual. I thought it was those who gravitate towards the sciences who suggest that spirituality must yield. So the first question I ask is why should the "side of science" roll over to a transcendent spirituality when the argument offers nothing to them? I lean towards the idea that the humanties and the sciences are different but equal, different in their emphasis, and equal in that their overarching normatives are geared towards the well-being of men and women. Perhaps all this "new paradigm" talk is a red herring and what needs to change is how we speak of such things. It does no one any favours to refer to people as "delusional" or compare them to fundamentalists- everyone is guilty of that. I believe in some things with unabashed dogmaticism. But I don't look down on those who reject my dogma. They've simply chosen a different criteria for what qualifies as knowledge. We have been conditioned to think that this is an acceptable way to discuss such matters. I've said before that I think truth is a fighting word. If you wish to fight, then pick it up. I've also said that you'd have to be crazy not to be insane these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted February 26, 2012 Share Posted February 26, 2012 In any of these discussions of unity between science and spirituality, it is always the side of "Science" that is suggested to be the one to capitualte to the spiritual. What in the world are you talking about here Rev? I don't see that being suggesting anywhere in this thread, and most certainly not in any words that came from my hands typing, here or anywhere in any thread. Can you support this with actual quotes from anyone in this thread? So the first question I ask is why should the "side of science" roll over to a transcendent spirituality when the argument offers nothing to them? The only thing I would say is that if someone has never actually done the experiment themselves and have no data to look at from first hand observation, than it's not really doing science to make speculations on speculations, is it? Perhaps all this "new paradigm" talk is a red herring and what needs to change is how we speak of such things. Who's speaking of 'new paradigm' in this thread? And yes, absolutely, we need to change how we speak of things. That's what I advocate. Modes of knowing, and ways of talking about them to the other domains. I don't believe an epistemological pluralism qualifies to be called a "new paradigm". It does no one any favours to refer to people as "delusional" or compare them to fundamentalists- everyone is guilty of that. We have been conditioned to think that this is an acceptable way to discuss such matters. I don't think it's acceptable. I consider it religious rhetoric in place of substance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts