“Reality exists INDEPENDENT of analytical thinking, however, some analysts (especially scientific analysts) have developed some of the best (albeit imperfect) model of reality--in my opinion. Poets, musicians and literature writers have develops some of the best expressions of the experiential components of this reality--in my opinion. Buddhists, Hindus, Christians, Muslims, etc. just develop fantasy worlds that don't touch me but might work for others.” – J
While I could blindly agree with you and not lose any sleep over it, I will chime in with some of my personal opinions along with a few questions here too. I do agree that analytical thinking is not the entirety of reality. This is a given without even dealing with a definition of the term ‘reality’. Further, since it is ‘you’ and ‘I’ discussing this, what it is to be a human being would seem to be known here….along with how we apprehend stuff. Thoughts are thoughts. They are not reality. They are based upon the past so they won’t help us much when it comes to knowing what reality is now. But, of course, we will continue to discuss it, won’t we? On the other hand, when one excludes thinking, even analytical thinking from what is ‘real’, since we do think, I posit we need to know the actual nature of thought itself. Continuing with a thumb nail sketch here, you say “…some analysts (especially scientific analysts) have developed some of the best (albeit imperfect) model [sic.] of reality….”. Fine. However, please allow me a couple of questions. First, which non-scientific analysts do you believe have developed some of the best….of reality? Next, since the term ‘model’ is used, we are dealing with a concept and not the thing itself, no? This is but an analogy as I have addressed elsewhere. They are fine, but are not ‘it’ as you already know. And, yes, the arts are another alanogical way of addressing ‘what is’. But, again due to the nature of such art, to fully know what reality is, one would need to know what art itself is along with, and excuse me, but we are back to what the nature of being human itself is, no? And, without belaboring the issue, I agree with your opinion that “… Buddhists, Hindus, Christians, Muslims, etc. just develop fantasy worlds…”. Well, not fully. I do agree that they can develop fantasy worlds. I also agree that atheists can do the same, as can scientists. The first time I started to study M-brane and strings I thought I was on acid. And, this is all mind stuff…clearly not reality. Concepts … including math. And, math from the 1800s at that! Now, for me, some of the best dialecticians in history are the Tibetan Buddhists. The Gelugpa school in particular required almost 20 years of debate before bestowing the title of, well in English, I’ll say monk. Yes, we know that debate alone does not result in knowing reality. This is clear. However, when it comes to epistemological and ontological issues, I’ve not found a better historical understanding and method of learning. I would include the ancient Greeks here, but in fact, there was come contact between these schools…as, in fact was there contact between the Greeks and the great scholars of Islam. In point of fact, the ‘West’s repository of knowledge of the wisdom of the ancient Greeks resided within Islam for a long time while the West declined. All of this said, I don’t ask you to accept any of it on faith. For a primer on Tibetan Buddhist analysis of reality, one place one can start is the small book “Appearance & Rality: The Two Truths in the Four Buddhist Tenet Systems” by Guy Newland. One will find apparent disagreement among different schools of thought even here…like is found almost universally. Verbosity awakens my consciousness in a way to cease and desist for now! :) On Jan 15, 6:33 am, "Jason (Memphis)" <[email protected]> wrote: > Reality exists INDEPENDENT of analytical thinking, however, some > analysts (especially scientific analysts) have developed some of the > best (albeit imperfect) model of reality--in my opinion. Poets, > musicians and literature writers have develops some of the best > expressions of the experiential components of this reality--in my > opinion. Buddhists, Hindus, Christians, Muslims, etc. just develop > fantasy worlds that don't touch me but might work for others. > > On Jan 14, 9:21 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > If reality were based on analytical thinking, linear thinking would be > > a fine basis for studying reality. > > > It isn't, so it isn't. > > > On Jan 14, 3:23 pm, Isparklaria <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Many systems require circular causation in total or in some of their > > > parts. For example the heat causes the thermostat to turn the heater > > > off which causes the room to cool which causes the thermostat to turn > > > the heater on which causes the room to heat which causes the > > > thermostat to turn off... until something causes this part of a system > > > to lose stability. This is a very simple example. To analyze some > > > parts linear thinking is helpful. However linear thinking tends to > > > make people miss the big picture and act in ways that often have > > > negative "side effects". > > > > On Jan 14, 1:20 pm, "Jason (Memphis)" <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > I don't understand the linear vs systems thinking. Most people think > > > > linearly about systems and try to figure out how the parts work > > > > together in a system. I don't think anyone (or few) thinks linearly > > > > naturally at any high level. That is why formal education works so > > > > hard to train & nurture linear and other ways of thinking at higher > > > > levels.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
