Ive noticed that many of the focii cling to the notion that science is irrefutable. Pirsig somewhere states that science is distinquished from religion simply because it has an eraser (so its dynamic in a sense). If im not mistaken David B claimed that science fails miserably when it comes to understanding the basis of the "I". I tend to agree, but it also fails when it comes to explaining Gaia as a whole. Quite simply, I doubt science could ever divide the "i" into its nice neat format. In order to investigate the self, one must be a third party that is seperate from the self. Buddhist philosophy points to the conception that the mind cannot be the idea of itself, and be itself at the same time, because its one and the same thing. We are using the idea of objectivity in a subjective sense, and thus objectivity is subjective, which I will delve deeper into later...Now, the pitfalls of language essentially force us to call the Self an idea (the notion of "I"), and therefore the tension of doing this creates the Freudian ego and superego. I read somewhere that it is like trying to walk by using your hands to pick up the feet (Alan Watt I think). On a physical basis, can a hand hold itself? Can the eye see itself? I think it will be a basic paradox of human existence for a long time, and likely as long as people are around...I have a tendency to want to "feel myself feeling happy" so that I can get the most of it...this actually ruins the entire notion of happiness because I am relating my static blocks of knowledge to a totally dynamic feeling. Its like eating food and, not content with tasting the food, I am also trying to taste my tongue tasting the food. I hope that made sense. The actual notion of objectivity is subjective since it has be contained within a subjective vessel. For example im sure each one of us understands objectivity in a different way. Scientific truths endeavour to be objective by relating an almost incomprehensible world into a comprehensible format. However, it could never relate the world in a true sense b/c it aims its truths to be graspable by the human mind via mathematics, language etc. Like almost any system, like morality, it falls apart when taken out of its structure. Pirsig discusses anthropology as being similar to this, since anthropology barely has a makeshift system to follow and thus it cannot explain human behaviour properly. Science has a system, but it only makes sense within its system. Hence we have the hypthesis...it is simply asking a question and answering it, and ever Pirsig admitted that many hypotheses are wrong simply because the question is too broad. All the anwers as well must fall into special guidelines. If youve been to a shrink you will find that psychiatrists do not let you ramble since your affliction must fall into their carefully defined catagories, and therefore they only ask you questions and you must answer them individually without going on a tangent. Psychologists on the other hand do not have an MD and are therefore less credible to the masses, but they endeavour to "fix" the mind with the mind. This relates to Pirsig and the mental institution alluding to the fact that he had not changed very much since he was in there, but only told them what they wanted to hear. You see, it follows a ridgid system. It even has its own set of terminology to make it "easier" to understand. Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Cioran etc. all examined existence with existence and were therefore essentially irrefutable. Although Kant used traditional means to relate his Critiques, he came to the conclusion that the basis of the Self is unknowable and dismissed any refutations one could possibly have. Like religion, science is an understandable way of grasping the ingraspable and therefore appeal to many people (like Christianity and other western religions). Kierkegaard mentioned in Fear and Trembling, that it is one of life's biggest paradoxes -- to scale the infinite into the finite. In fact, as im sure most of you know, infinite means simply "not finite" meaning infinite is ungraspable and so we had to say what it is not. This is similar to contradiction meaning "against words" meaning the source of contradictions is simply the ambiguities of language... One cannot dismiss the so-called advances in scientific research, but the result is an incredible increase in the "quality" of static quality, even though most argue it is both static and dynamic. Science is only irrefutable because of its system and only when one is applying the system to refute the system (a problem to say the least). Now, most people judge others in a categorical sense, and we live in a word of categorisation, systemisation etc. which can be both good and bad, but in my humble opinion, it is taking us farther from appreciating life for what it is. That is, pure indiluted existence - a mainly dynamic view of everything. I would write more, however I am @ work and it calls. I am curious to your reactions however, if any... Nishant Taneja ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
