Re: FW: Re fwd - How science is really done
Sorry Ray, I cannot possibly deal with long
posts like this. The few paragraphs I did read were
totally incomprehensible to me... Oncc I retire
I'll have more time... meanwhile, if it is not
possible to sum it up, I have to leave it...
(I have to make a living... If anyone offers me some
money for discussing stuff on the net full-time,
please do, I think I just found my true vocation...)
Eva
Eva Durant wrote:
reality is a word symbol for what we believe is out there.
no, it was/is/will be there whether we believe it or not.
By reality I mean the physical world and all it's past
present and future variable permutations.
We have different perceptions and beliefs, but
as we are getting better at communication,
the overlapping bits are approximating the
real thing better and better.
When we die does
that universe we believe continue or does the "out there" that may or may
not be what we believe continue? If you call that reality then you must
call what you believe it to be something else, right?
Never occured to me to call reality all the
different beliefs people have, though hopefully
these converge to the reality I defined above
with time.
Eva
Thanks Eva,
well said,
just a few things stirred by your words.
Sounds to me like you are saying "your 'word' and 'reality' are 'one' and the
'word' is eternal."
We say "the 'word' was the beginning for human consciousness and all words are
human, including the word and concept 'reality'." What we call "reality" is
a construct of the human consciousness to try to make some kind of system of
that which seems external to us according to our senses.
The word "reality" for me is the same as Plato's Cave.When we come out of
the Cave we construct whole civilizations in "ideas" like clouds but the
remnant from the Cave (the belief in objectivity) keeps us from being
comfortable living in the clouds.
The Christians construct a Heaven in the Clouds but then make it out of
concrete. But the metaphor of the clouds speaks for a different state of
being than the word "reality" defines. In that "reality" there is "object"
relations.
Amongst my people, life is a relationship that is not (human life vs. object)
but (alive-alive) with different states of 'aliveness.' Each being master of
their own consciousness. If you plant a human in the earth, like a carrot,
the human dies but we call a carrot an object without consciousness because it
can't talk. One of the problems I have on this list, sometimes, is that it
feels like everyone is expected to be "carrots."
For me, the whole concept of "objectivity" only has meaning as a transitional
phase of pedagogy when humans break things apart to articulate them before they
put them back together again. We do the same with the so-called "systems" of
anatomy in the body when in "reality" (there's that word again) they are not
separate and in fact the lymph system is so contrary even to the idea of
systems that we ignore it's rules at our peril being much more comfortable with
systems that stay in their own channels and don't mix. Of course apprentice
Doctors make their mistakes on cadavers while apprentice economists practice on
us. (As my pedagogy instructor said in college, "An MD's failures are left on
the table while your's meets you in the streets, you had better learn your
craft and succeed at it!")
I think all we can say about what you seem to be calling "eternal reality" is
that it seems, according to all human consciousness and exploration to "exist"
i.e. that it "is."But beyond that everything is "up for grabs." I tend to
accept the belief that the only way that existence can be described is
metaphorically because anything you say about it is ultimately both true and
untrue.
So where does that put science? Truths are what you all have built your lives
upon from your traditions. Truths are how you define your reality, (not
necessarily the same as mine). Truths can be changed but must be moved slowly
and with great respect. They are the "legs" for the stage where you dance your
life. Balance is crucial.Truth is the realm of the Sacred. (The English
word "Sacred" comes from the same root as "Sacrifice.") It is the struggle
and the sacrifice that makes human life have growth and meaning and is
intensely personal i.e. individual. It is this "will to grow and have
meaning" that is the way we participate in the Sacred, a relationship, a dance
if you will.
Religion is not the same as the Sacred but constitutes a mass production
('scale' for all you economists) of individual facts so that groups can
participate on the Truth level.However, there is an inherent oxymoron in
the words Sacred Theology.That is why I love the Iroquois "Great Law."
It begins by everyone admitting that this theology is an agreement between the
people as to a group
Re: Re:democracy
Thomas: This is a good little essay and touch's on some very important observations. Victor wrote: As I recall, this thread got started with a comment about many of the voters seeming to be neither intelligent nor well-informed.I'm sure from many of his postings that Ed Weick did not mean this in an elitist sense. I don't think lack of intelligence is really the problem. I also do not think that intelligence in any easily definable sense is really relevant. The core of the issue is really personal values. Thomas: If we are going to continue to exist in a political system in which we have voters, then what is the important criteria we should hold voters to - intelligence? - well informed? - personal values? - political viewpoints? - age? - mental competency? - the list can be endless. What is the purpose of a political system? It is to provide governance to all citizens. What our current structure has done is remove the main goal of a government - to provide governace to all citizens - and we have turned it into a gladiatorial contest in which the audience is given the right a certain moments to give a thumbs up or a thumbs down. How stupid. Victor wrote: I work in a factory and my best friend there is a spot-welder named Harold. I don't think Harold could have pursued all the academic education I obtained before my foot slipped off the career ladder. However, Harold's heart is in the right place and he has a great deal of common sense (in the original meaning of that phrase, not in the debased meaning popularized by the right-wing government of Ontario). When you promote the notion of governance based on intelligence, you have no guiding values to select those people. Although I have successfully completed 10 years of post-secondary education (English and later theology), I doubt that I or anyone else could prove that I am more intelligent than, say, a University of Chicago neoconservative economist. It just happens that I am right about most things and he is dead wrong!!! I would much rather see my friend Harold in charge of vital policy decisions than a neoconservative economist. That is why I would never support a meritocracy scheme like Jay Hanson's. Thomas: And what does Harold want? He is a citizen and he expects those who govern to be accessible and to act in the best interests of all citizens. Is this the current situation? I would say "no!". I do not think there is a government in the world that acts in the best interests of it's citizens and my diagnosis is that the structure of democracy is distorted by the concept of voting. Victor wrote: I think that most people have their values right, say about 70 per cent of them. (I base this figure on poll results in Canada about specific issues such as health care or welfare.) However, the voters often elect parties that are all too likely to bring about results contrary to what they really want. They get taken in by phoney promises, "We have to cut the deficit, we have to give tax breaks to big business, so that we can afford to give you better health care ... sometime in the sweet bye-and-bye." The problem is one of misinformation for at 70 per cent of the voters. I do not see any easy way to change the situation. Media outlets are very expensive to own and operate, so by definition they will continue to be owned by the wealthy and to promote the interests of the wealthy. Most people are not going to search the Internet looking for fresh information and alternative viewpoints; they don't have the time and the specific interest. Stephen Best, Director of Environment Voters, believes that activists can influence the direction of the government only by working at the grassroots level, doing personal canvassing during elections. http://environmentvoters.org Thomas: These are arguments that are common to most who think of these matters, but the solution is not within the box, you have to get outside of the box before you can truly see an alternative other than "technical changes" within the box. Victor wrote: I intimated that for perhaps 30 per cent of the voters, the problem is more than lack of information; they don't have their hearts in the right place. I've been doing some informal analysis of why some people enthusiastically support the regressive Mike Harris regime in Ontario although a well-informed person would see clearly that it is against their own economic self-interest. My observations convince me that for many people there is an emotional component to their allegiance that is quite impervious to logic and information. Some evince a masochistic guilt: "We were living too high off the hog; someone had to make those cuts." A larger number like to blame problems on the weak and helpless: "It's those lazy welfare bums that like to sit at home and drink beer while I'm out working my ass off to pay for them." Or it's the immigrants, people of colour, aboriginal, etc. I do not think there is much hope of changing people
