--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard M" <compost...@...> wrote:
> Yet "Greens" also tend to be *progressives*. Which means they sign up > hook, line & sinker to Scientism - the idea that we have some new > magic called "scientific method" which we can apply to any sphere of > life (Popper, Kuhn, Duhem, Quine, Lakatos etc notwithstanding). > > I see that as what bearded Marxists would call a "contradiction". Seeing the scientific method this way seems odd. Science has done so much good in helping humans overcome their natural cognitive errors. Turning this method into a belief system as if it is on a par with other belief systems with unfounded assertions isn't accurate. We don't know the limits of its usefulness in any area of life. Certainly if we can't formulate a falsifiable claim we don't have much use for the method. But we have tons of falsifiable claims to go before we reach this limit. Here's one: People who do TM for a long time can access the home of all the laws of nature and can do things that people who haven't practiced it can't do. The scale of "green issues" makes the application of the scientific method difficult. But the goal of weeding out beliefs with more evidence to support them from ones with less seems like a good thing to me. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard M" <compost1uk@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 > > > > <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." <wgm4u@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 > > > > > > <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > I like the passage in MMY's Gita where he says you have control > > > > > over > > > > > > action alone, 'never' over the fruits. > > > > > > > > > > > > "You have control over action alone (Arjuna), never over its > > > > > fruits. > > > > > > Live not for the fruits of action, 'nor' attach yourself to > > > > > inaction." > > > > > > Gita vs47 ChII > > > > > > > > > > > thanks-- i hadn't seen that connection before in the passage > above, > > > > > but that is definitely the process i went through for a couple of > > > > > decades. in other words undertaking action to be true to my > > > > > devotion, but instead of deciding on what the outcome would be, > > just > > > > > doing the action because i felt i had to, to be true to my > self and > > > > > my relationship with the divine, and leaving my hope and faith to > > > > > take care of the outcome. > > > > > > > > > > interesting that the end of the passage above says "nor attach > > > > > yourself to inaction". in other words, don't -try- to live in the > > > > > silence of the Absolute, but instead act as the Lord commands you. > > > > > > > > > > thanks for a new look at an old friend. > > > > > > > > Goethe said something like 'do the next task that is in front of > you' > > > > which may be a pragmatic application of the golden rule. > > > > > > > > I have never quite understood why such pre-medieval pre-scientific > > > > pre-rational claims below are taken seriously and even applauded. > > > > > > > > "You have control over action alone (Arjuna), never over its > > > > fruits" > > > > > > > > If you drop a bowling ball over your foot, do you really have no > clue > > > > as to what the fruit of that action will be? > > > > > > > > > "...The ball slammed into his foot creating the most excruciating pain > > > he had ever experienced in all his life. > > > > Fruits of actions known. > > > > > Eventually he passed out. > > > When finally his awareness began to return he became aware of a vision > > > before him - the sight of a nurse with the prettiest face he had ever > > > seen > > > > Jewel is also a nurse? > > > > > . Ah! his heart swooned, and [get on with it ed.]...they lived > > > happily together for ever, and ever. Ah....." > > > > Fruits of actions unknown. > > > > Yes, clearly there is a mix. We know the fruits of many actions > > (rockets, cars, internet, football passes, adding H to O, ... > > > > And we clearly do not know actions that cause the fruits everything -- > > or even if all things have a cause and are not random. Looking at > > gravitational and motion effects, physics can pretty well predict the > > effect of one pool ball on another. When you look at the interaction > > of 10 or more balls, there are something like 10^100 interactions -- > > and the gravitational effects of far planets and galaxies come into > > play, I am told. So while the answer may be solvable, that is, the > > fruits are knowable, its far to vast a calculation to undertake today. > > > > Other fruits may be unfathomable. Women. I jest. But unknown, > > unpredictable, unconceivable events with a large impact have been > > named black swans -- there is a great recent book on this topic. > > > > Then there are gray swans -- things we can conceive may happen, but > > are so hard to predict -- that they create vast horizons of > > uncertainty in our lives and society. Some say 9/11 was a black swan > > -- but I see it as a gray swan -- given common sense (al quada blew up > > the basement of the world trade center 10 or so years earlier, and the > > white house memo that al quada was planning an attack by hijacked > > airplane) -- it was a known possibility but hard to predict when and > > where. Or the current financial crisis. The extremes of the housing > > bubble were well known, but how they would fully manifest, or implode > > -- where, when and how were uncertain -- though in retrospect, quite > > traceable. > > > > If Krishna was living today and had a decent education (which one > > wonders why the GodHead of the entire creation and the root of all > > knowledge didn't understand this 5000 years ago -- must be the > > translations) he might say "You have control over action and over an > > increasing amount of the fruits of actions, that is scientific > > progress and for this you have my blessings -- but the more you know > > the more you realize you don't know -- so the universe will always be > > filled with wonder, awe and mystery -- even for the Gods." > > > > Amen to that. > > It's hard to say, but I may have detected a wee bit of *green* > sentiment in your bourbon apocalypticism of another post? > > It's an interesting thing IMO. The humility inherent in the proverbial > "You have control over action alone, never over its fruits" seems to > me to be the BEST argument for being "green". Viz. We suffer these > days from an arrogance borne of scientific hubris - hence we should > take more care before e.g. going bonkers about nuclear power, because > of our ignorance over "unintended consequences". > > Yet "Greens" also tend to be *progressives*. Which means they sign up > hook, line & sinker to Scientism - the idea that we have some new > magic called "scientific method" which we can apply to any sphere of > life (Popper, Kuhn, Duhem, Quine, Lakatos etc notwithstanding). > > I see that as what bearded Marxists would call a "contradiction". >
