Hi New Morn:
On Jul 26, 2008, at 1:20 PM, new.morning wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
One may be simple translation. The word often used in the spiritual
sciences for the western word science is "vidya". However vidya has a
deeper meaning that the western term science, as it is less
encumbered
by the taboo of subjectivity which stultifies western science. The
taboo of subjectivity
I Know! All that scientific, white-coat, pocket protector eggheads get
so riled up about cognitive biases and self-serving results. Whew.
When will they get a clue!
It's not so much a "clue" but an understanding and appreciation of
subjective science. Since one is public and the other, subjective
science is "private", it's a natural place for misunderstanding to
arise.
in the west has a lot to do with the way the
scientific fundamentalism
You nailed it brother. What a bunch of literalists with massive
blinders on. I mean when they read their scientific journals, they
actually interpret each word in a precise and literal sense. No
creativity. No seeing the big picture of the Known View. No
understanding, a priori, of how things really are. I only pray to
Jesus that I will never fall into that abyss of ignorance.
Pray on dude.
came about but it is also a shared element
with religious fundamentalism, as both have placed a taboo on
subjectivity.
I Know! If they delve into subjectivity its only that intersubjective
validation crap -- where a whole lot of people need to agree that they
seez the same thing. I mean, GD it, I see what i see, and its the damn
Truth! no matter if anyone else seez it.
Well, that's not my point. It's only worth approaching any science--
subjective or materialistic--if we know the instrumentation we use is
reliable. I would not assume "just because you said so" that your
subjective "instrument" was reliable. In fact, I would assume, since
refining an inner instrument to observe consciousness is an acquired
trait, that you (or anyone) does not have the refined level of
consciousness to observe subjective states. Like it's "outer" brother,
it too requires training and established expertise.
Both believe they are heading towards an absolute truth,
Yes, if anything, you have hit the nail on the head. Their premier
tenent of modern science is the discovery and defense of Absolute
Truth, Once Absolute Truth is found, there's no looking back. No
counter theories, no debate, no critiques Specially if its MY absolute
truth.
Again, not my point. The point was not that science established
indefensible, unfalsifiable absolute truths, but that public,
materialistic truths are all we can know by science and inner truths
are beyond the realm of scientific inquiry, in fact that they are taboo.
The reason science leans towards the absolute is because it's logical
outcome, the defining of all of nature by scientific laws, could
eventually mean that we could understand, scientifically, how
everything works. This increasing knowledge of the physical world will
therefore be the solution to all of man's problems. The idea of modern
science as a search for absolutes actually is a prominent theme in
Galileo and Newton and, as you point out, was replaced as new theories
came about and were found to be more realistic ideas. But once
established, such laws can not only be taken as absolute laws (e.g.,
gravitation, "absolute" zero, etc.) it's also not unusual for
scientific materialists to hold old onto their beliefs with the
similar tenacity of religious fundamentalists. So therein lies the
similarity.
one based on science's grokking of Nature, the other through the
absolute word of god.
I know! I hate that damn Journal of Scientific Groks. Scientists are
so confused that they all think Scientific Groking reveals Truth (the
ONE Truth)
Again, you miss the point. The point is that just as a scientific
paper, that we must take on faith can be replicated, can move beyond
mere faith by actually going through the steps to replicate and prove
to our actual senses or extended senses (microscopes, telescopes,
etc.) the validity of that paper; in an internal science we can also
with a steady and refined instrument develop insights which can be
replicated by following the same procedures or techniques by others.
The main split here is that one is inherently public (I can drop a
bowling ball and a bag of feathers off the Leaning Tower of Pisa and
invite all my friends to see it with their external senses); and
another is, by nature, private. What I'm quietly thinking is generally
known to me and not others. Just because it can generally not be known
to others does not mean that it cannot be a valid medium for
scientific inquiry.
The actual basis for what we call science is in fact based on Greek
and Hebrew religious and philosophical beliefs which all assert
that a
god or gods created the universe we inhabit before he/she/they
created
humans--this a basis for scientific realism which in turn was a basis
for scientific materialism.
YOU are so right on today! First you are right, if jews and
goat-slamming greeks came up with it, its really suspect.
No, that's not why it's suspect because of who came up with it. What
is suspect is an inherent bias towards physicalism that was applied
towards science. Since the world was created before the mind of man,
it is independent of the human mind. Thus people with this view
naturally assume that there exists a real, independent outside world.
In order for man to perceive the universe truly, as the creator did,
he must seek to view the world beyond his own subjectivity in the same
way god transcends the physical world. He must seek the purely
objective gods-eye view and get rid of all subjective tendencies.
Thus arose this natural bias of scientific materialism.
And I took
some undergraduate science, and hung out with some science grad
students, and they told me the secret -- science is really all based
on a core belief that gods created the universe. Its like in the first
chapter of ALL science texts.
Hmmm.
This is actually a rather lengthy and detailed topic,
I know -- and I am too lame to understand it, so I am so glad you are
giving me the distilled version. And plus, being your subjective
truth, that makes it even more golden.
Gee thanks. I'm inscribing it in gold gilt as we speak.
as one has to
explain what the taboo of subjectivity is and how it came about,
along
with our current paradigms.
I Know! can't them knucklehead scientists see that they are locked
into a paradigm.
Some can, some cannot; some cling to beliefs.
