Thank you for making that point. I agree that logic is not the only
suitable tool for discovering the truth. I should have been clear about
the target audience for the terminology used in that post. Also, I agree that
the "language" I used, currently, would not be efficient when
communicating with the majority of human beings. With that in mind, I
agree that communication/discussion/explanation/persuasion/information
should incorporate morality, emotion, logic etc... in the order and
proportions that make the "energy expense" receivable/usable for the
majority of the audience.
Maybe the order is emotion, morality then logic. When I examine myself I see
that hearing some sort of "news" elicits emotion first for varying duration
based on many variables. That usually leads to my thinking "that's not right"
or "what a horrible thing to do". The morality then leads to "why does this
anger or excite me" and "why is that right or wrong". I think people who have
had the privilege of "continuing education"(more stimuli) will be more likely
to perform introspection, but I believe that you are right in saying that
humans encounter many different combinations of emotion, morality and logic.
Globally, there is a great diversity of human beings who are unique, and each
has encountered unique sets of stimuli across their life(time) that compounds
their uniqueness. Because the audience is diverse those, who
possess and utilize a diversity of "communication skills", will be more
capable when attempting to relate with a majority of that diverse audience.
When people live in a country where a diversity of languages are spoken, those
who are bi, tri or
multilingual will likely benefit accordingly. If the majority of a given
persons' interactions are with a single language, he or she can "afford" to
invest more in what is needed for primary interactions. This trade-off will be
relative to the extent that resources are acquired through social
interactions. A person living in the country side that
interacts/acquires through a small, less diverse group that speaks one
language(including with an accent), can afford not to invest as much energy in
learning the languages that are more necessary for the high diversity scenario.
The diversity(and complexity) of interactions in our solar system, in turn,
favors that diversity of genetics. If energy is to stay in the system
termed "genes", genes will benefit from genetic diversity to ensure its
relative stability(survival). A environment with a diversity of
pathogens/diseases etc..., will favor a diversity
of genetic code for the immune "system". A diversity of soil types favors a
diversity phenotypic expressions. A diverse market place(economy) favors a
diverse "portfolio". Diverse job duties
favors a diverse skill set. A diversity of robbers favors a diversity of hiding
spots for eggs. These analogies are possible because the same
root cause is expressed across different combinations of
stimuli(situations), and as the environment, markets, job duties, robbers
change; how we allocate resources will need "Change".
I believe that because all
pathways(communication) are built by the same fundamental material, the
possibility for translation exists. Just as we have language translators, we
can translate similar words(beleifs) across other languages(religions). I
believe one day Religions will be viewed as a local adaptation(mind strategy)
for the particular social environment, geographic local etc..., from which it
arose. Whether the religion of people high in the Andes Mountains to those in
Tropical Rain Forests, Buddha, Christ, Allah, Mother Earth; the various
relatively isolated human populations developed ("moral code") that made the
majority of people, more fit in that particular environment. We only need to
look at the striking similarities in the message and overall goal of various
religions and in the "new kid on the block"(in terms of human systems) that we
call Science. We must use varying combinations of emotion, moral and logic
based on the audience. The challenges that face our species demands that we
learn to see the relationship of all mind
stratgies(adaptations), which will require "a lot of energy" on our part.
Respectfully,
Micah
________________________________
From: James Crants <jcra...@gmail.com>
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Sent: Wed, May 19, 2010 9:36:30 AM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict?
I, too, appreciate Jane's contribution to this conversation. We can only
speculate on the origins of religion, since religion originated long before
written language, or even cave art (if neanderthal and modern human religion
have a common origin; though I will agree with William Silvert that religion
probably didn't come about because any gods revealed their existence to our
ancestors).
However, science can say something about what goes on in the brain when
people have religious experiences, and perhaps it can say something about
why some people seem to need religion while others couldn't be religious if
they wanted to. It can tell us how similar the experience of meditation is
to the experience of prayer, or getting mentally absorbed in an anthill, or
drawing, or playing an instrument, or driving a car, and so on. Based on a
biological understanding of religious experience, plus the archeological
evidence, we can form models of how religion originated and evolved in
modern humans, and how it is relevant to modern life.
I do think the "naturalist's trance" is basically the same as a religious
experience. I don't know of any hard evidence bearing on that, but the
experience is similar to those I've had from meditation, intense prayer,
playing music, painting pictures, and running much further than a mile or
so. Such experiences say nothing at all about whether there is such a thing
as divinity, but I think they have a lot to do with the origins of
humanity's belief in divinity.
Jim Crants
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 8:55 PM, Wayne Tyson <landr...@cox.net> wrote:
> Ah-HA!
>
> I think she's GOT IT! By Jove, I think she's got it! The rain in Spain . .
> .
>
> Eureka! Peak experiences!
>
> As in all art, the concentration of the intellect somehow gets "processed"
> by our inner resources, and "breaks through" back into the conscious after a
> period of gestation and there is a birth of insight. Burning bushes and
> other hallucinations aside, just about all scientific discovery is thus
> produced.
>
> WT
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jane Shevtsov" <jane....@gmail.com>
>
> To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU>
> Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 7:48 PM
>
> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict?
>
>
> I think it's a mistake to reduce religion to
>> anthropomorphism/explanations and morality/politics. There is a
>> crucial third element -- the human capacity for spiritual (meditative,
>> oceanic, transcendent, pick your favorite adjective) experiences.
>> These experiences are now being studied by psychologists and
>> neuroscientists (look up "neurotheology") and are often connected to
>> experiences in nature.
>>
>> My hypothesis about the origins of such experiences is partially
>> inspired by a passage from E.O. Wilson's book _Biophilia_. "In a twist
>> my mind came free and I was aware of the hard workings of the natural
>> world beyond the periphery of ordinary attention, where passions lose
>> their meaning and history is in another dimension, without people, and
>> great events pass without record or judgment. I was a transient of no
>> consequence in this familiar yet deeply alien world that I had come to
>> love. The uncounted products of evolution were gathered there for
>> purposes having nothing to do with me; their long Cenozoic history was
>> enciphered into a genetic code I could not understand. The effect was
>> strangely calming. Breathing and heartbeat diminished, concentration
>> intensified. It seemed to me that something extraordinary in the
>> forest was very close to where I stood, moving to the surface and
>> discovery. ... I willed animals to materialize and they came
>> erratically into view."
>>
>> What does this passage, which describes an experience I suspect most
>> members of this list have had, most resemble? It sounds a lot like how
>> practitioners of some types of meditation describe their experience.
>> But what is this "naturalist's trance" good for, other than science?
>> Hunting, gathering and looking out for predators! Maybe, just maybe,
>> this was our ancestors' normal state of consciousness and maybe
>> various religious and spiritual practices arose as a way of
>> recapturing this state as, for biological and social reasons, our
>> minds changed.
>>
>> This is, of course, a guess, but what do you folks think?
>>
>> Jane Shevtsov
>>
>>
>>
>>
