morning (here)
what i'm getting at is that there's subjective and objective reality
and experience
yes, they don't always mesh on a consensus level, but they do in each
of our lives
insisting only on more logic, to me, won't necessarily help us in all
endeavors, but combined with being spontaneous, lucid, intuitive, and
of benevolent intent will; simply being creative and compassionate
creativity has only the logic we assign to it - logic has been used to
perpetuate and distort us historically, in the guise of religions,
politics, and culture as a whole, it is a mode of thinnking that is as
fallible as the person intent that is using it, so one can be misled
through logic - one person's logic is another person's blasphemy
the things i mention may not have anything to do with "truth" as you
see it, but of discovery and experience, i don't look at scientism as
a means to reveal truth, but a means of discovery, assisting us in
reshaping our perception of reality, as we grow and change through
time as a species
living experience is the method at the fountainhead of existence, not
a particular appraoch to defining it
off to other activities - howie
On Feb 4, 4:49 am, KateXe...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> On 3 Feb 2007 15:29:00 -0800, "h elmer | espeance" <espea...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>
> > to clarify, i'm not against science or the scientific method, in fact
> > i sup****t it, it's only an aspect of our reality, not the whole though
>
> The scientific method as it exists today is an essential tool for those
who seek
> truth. When dealing with the unknown, viewing it through the lens of
the
> scientific method is pretty much the only way a human is going to avoid
being
> had.
>
> I don't particularly like calling it the "scientific" method, though -
it's got
> so much broader of a range of practical use than just scientific
endeavors.
>
> > can science describe the beauty of a rose, the taste of an orange, the
> > brilliance of light glimmering of of rippling water - no, it can
> > describe the "how" of the experience, the mechanics,
>
> What have these things to do with truth? It seems to me as though you
might be
> equivocating truth with perception. Please correct me if I've
misunderstood,
> but if I haven't, then I can only say that truth and perception are
quite often
> at odds with one another. Aside from which science isn't a tool of
perception,
> it's a tool of knowledge and learning, and its methodology (particularly
the>logic< part) should be applied to far more things than it presently is.
>
> Comparing science to human experience is like the -oh- so cliche of
comparing
> apples to oranges. There is no justification for comparing them, they
aren't
> even in the same universe as one another, practically speaking.
>
> > but only a conscious awarenesss can have or be it, which points
> > to an entirely different element of our reality, just as
> > valuable, and just as substantial
>
> May I inquire as to what definition of "substantial" you are using
within that
> context? I'm not trying to contradict you by asking this, mind you -
there are
> reasonable definitions of the word that would fit what you're saying,
but I
> think there are more than one such definitions and I just want to make
sure I
> understand this statement. C'est toute, merci. :-)
|
