I am curious, Harry, as to whether, when you speak of 'consequences' you are assuming straight-line, cause and effect thinking.
I am not a physicist, of course, but it is my impression that there are many physicists today (not just the Bohms and Peats) who agree that cause and effect thinking in straight lines is simply incapable of beginning to answer the questions they are having trouble with. Isn't that one of the reasons for the development of theories like string theory and chaos theory? It is also my impression that Einstein brought into question the reality of time and space as anything but a human construct. If that is true, and I stand to be corrected by the physicists or would-be physicists on the list, does that not bring into question the idea that everything can be explained by straight-line, cause and effect explanations? Just to bring in the cultural perspective again, the lack of linearity in the behavior and language of some cultures makes for for fascinating reading; there is a whole different reality in which people live depending on their language and cultural beliefs and those beliefs may or may not make the assumptions we do about 'consequences' and 'results'. Selma ----- Original Message ----- From: "Harry Pollard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "eric stewart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 9:55 PM Subject: Re: Somethingness > Eric, > > The job of the scientist (western thinking) is to find consequences - > things that happen as the result of another happening. Best of all is the > invariable consequence - the consequence that always happens. We call such > inevitable consequences - Natural laws. > > This is the way we categorize events and make it possible for us to see > reality. > > I don't think that talking in parables - being deliberately mysterious - > helps us at all. > > I suspect that such statements - I called them oracular - are more designed > to seduce than to inform. > > Harry > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------- > > Eric wrote: > > >From: Harry Pollard > > > > > Eric, > > > > > > To attack "western thinking" you set up a hypothetical situation, then > > > proceed to point out that our thinking cannot handle it. I suggest that > > > >one cannot use the box to think outside the box > > > >we are ALL dealing in MODELS...the only way for me to not do so is to > >shutup...like everyone else > > > > > > > western thinking (whatever that is) can handle any real situation, but has > > > difficulty dealing with the unreal. > > > >cause-and-effect thinking CANNOT account for the universe as it is...this > >is why physics has left cause-and-effect far behind > > > >and admits to just beginning to catch up with eastern 'mysticism' > > > > > > > > But then, so does any thinking no matter where it originates. > > > > > > However, I wouldn't want to lay on your shoulders the burden of defending > > > these things, but I do think they are oracular rather than meaningful. > > > > > > >cool...i give meaning to such and you do not > > > >glad we are not carbon copies of each other > > > ****************************** > Harry Pollard > Henry George School of LA > Box 655 > Tujunga CA 91042 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Tel: (818) 352-4141 > Fax: (818) 353-2242 > ******************************* > >
