Guest guest Posted March 23, 2002 Report Share Posted March 23, 2002 Dear Alice, You wrote: > I > > I agree but there are a whole grp of fundamentalists who do not - in fact, > they are deadset on turning usa into a Christian theocracy. They won't succeed in doing so, but by virtue of their effort to do so, they constitute a valuable counterweight to the forces of secular nihilism. Best regards, Dan Watkins Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 23, 2002 Report Share Posted March 23, 2002 Dear Lehnert, " Lehnert N. Riegel " wrote: > > > > > A clear example of what I mean by actons or attempted actions is the > attempt to teach our children that Creationism has equal standing as a > scientific theory with Evolution. > Why prefer one unsubstantiated myth over another? Evolutionary theory is so full of holes that, if it were underwear, you'd use it for a dust rag. I predict that in one hundred years' time, it will seems as quaint to us as Lamarkianism does now. Natural selection, indeed. A likely story :-). Best regards, dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 23, 2002 Report Share Posted March 23, 2002 Dear Alice, Iwholeheartedly agree. But what you describe and unfortunately now threatens us is not what I had in mind! Also, talking to those fanatics and trying to convert them seems rather hopeless in the short run. don't you think? Talking about soapboxes, feel free. I would never disagree with a thing you just said. But I put little faith in missionaries, and those of us who want to show everyone 'our truth " I don't think ,many people are willing to listen. Nothing I said or believe would give comfort to fundamentalists, but I once knew a great number of them whose worst attempts at converting others was a pulpit or talk. They did not want to disrupt anything but the listless population which they thought fair game. ( and ban liquor) I always thought a quite , " No thanks, I already have my religion " was enough to turn them off. I doubt that would have worked with the Intefada, or the Inquisition, though. Even the Pentecostals and the Mormons who came to our door, would leave quietly. When fanaticism turns to hate....well, you know I have been there. But that is true of all frightened, weak people looking for a scapegoat. We will not change that anytime soon, will we? Perhaps we are attempting to kill not to convert those who refuse to see the light?? We certainly will not shake their beliefs. Toni IonaDove@... wrote: > In a message dated 3/23/02 12:13:21 PM Eastern Standard Time, toni@... > writes: > > > " . Why try to shake people's faith as long as it is physically or > > emotionally non threatening to those who believe otherwise? > > I agree but there are a whole grp of fundamentalists who do not - in fact, > they are deadset on turning usa into a Christian theocracy. Fanaticism fr any > quarter is dangerous. The Taliban are a gd example. Fascism, communism pt to > the same threat. Here in the Berkshires today our paper lists at least 18 > diff Christ, Jewish, Buddhist, etc groups inviting people to their various > services! this is as it shld be n no one is bombing anyone else's house of > worship. > > one of the 4 Freedoms is FREEDOM OF RELIGION so let's be wary of any one grp > laying down the law for another! On the other hand, i strongly advocate the > teaching of comparitive religions in public high school - we send u.s. > soldiers, aged 20, all over the world who don't know diddley-squat ab Islam > or Hinduism or Shinto or even Christianity - this can have tragic > consequences, esp as ALL the major religs have fundamentalist sects > entrenched in literalism wh freezes the symbolic understanding concealed in > all of them. > > stepping down fr soapbox > > ao!:} > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 23, 2002 Report Share Posted March 23, 2002 3/23/02 13:07 Alice Howell wrote: In a message dated 3/23/02 12:13:21 PM Eastern Standard Time, toni@... writes: > > " . Why try to shake people's faith as long as it is physically > >or emotionally non threatening to those who believe otherwise? >I agree but there are a whole grp of fundamentalists who do not - >in fact, they are deadset on turning usa into a Christian >theocracy. Fanaticism fr any quarter is dangerous. The Taliban >are a gd example. Fascism, communism pt to the same threat. Here >in the Berkshires today our paper lists at least 18 diff Christ, >Jewish, Buddhist, etc groups inviting people to their various >services! this is as it shld be n no one is bombing anyone else's >house of worship. >one of the 4 Freedoms is FREEDOM OF RELIGION so let's be wary of >any one grp laying down the law for another! On the other hand, i >strongly advocate the teaching of comparitive religions in public >high school - we send u.s. soldiers, aged 20, all over the world >who don't know diddley-squat ab Islam or Hinduism or Shinto or >even Christianity - this can have tragic consequences, esp as ALL >the major religs have fundamentalist sects entrenched in >literalism wh freezes the symbolic understanding concealed in all >of them. >stepping down fr soapbox > >ao!:} > > >Alice O. Howell >Rosecroft >72 Beartown Mt. Road >Monterey, MA 01245 USA >Tel: >Fax: > " Look for the sacred in the commonplace! " Alice, Please DO NOT step down from that soapbox; I for one benefit greatly from both your wisdom and your moral authority. I care not a whit about what people believe ( " their faith " ), let them believe what they wish. But I care a whole lot about their actions or attempted actions. A clear example of what I mean by actons or attempted actions is the attempt to teach our children that Creationism has equal standing as a scientific theory with Evolution. These folks can teach THEIR children that way if that's what they wish and they do it outside the public schools. However, I draw the line at their forcing my children and grandchildren to be taught that way in the public schools. This is where I differentiate between belief and action. Hypothetically, there may be some cases where the difference is indistinct but in every actual case I've personally seen, the difference was very clear. BTW, I also agree that we should teach more about religion in the public grade schools and high schools but that may well be something even St. Jude would rather not attempt. = _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ = || Lehnert N. Riegel || Fountain Valley, California USA || 33°41'N 117°57'W || lehnert@... || UT -7/8 (standard/daylight savings time) = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 23, 2002 Report Share Posted March 23, 2002 In a message dated 3/23/2002 5:38:22 PM Central Standard Time, lehnert@... writes: > A clear example of what I mean by actons or attempted actions is the > attempt to teach our children that Creationism has equal standing as a > scientific theory with Evolution. > > These folks can teach THEIR children that way if that's what they wish > and they do it outside the public schools. > > However, I draw the line at their forcing my children and grandchildren > to be taught that way in the public schools. Dear Lehnert, Isn't this a bit of a contradiction? Why shouldn't Creationism be taught in the public schools and you teach your children about Evolution at home? I happen to believe in evolution as a scientific principle and that creationism is at best a symbolic message, and I believe science supports evolution as the most likely way we got to where we are, but wouldn't it be possible for both theories (and evolution is only a theory albeit a very persuasive one) to be taught as " this is the way some people understand how it all happened? " Then the home front is where it could be emphasized, " This is what *we* believe. " Namasté Sam in Texas §(ô¿ô)§ Minds are like parachutes; they function best when open. A closed mind is a good thing to lose. " Minds are like parachutes; most people use them only as a last resort. " ~Ben Ostrowsky Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 23, 2002 Report Share Posted March 23, 2002 Alice wrote >> I agree but there are a whole grp of fundamentalists who do not - in fact, >> they are deadset on turning usa into a Christian theocracy. 3/23/02 03:14 DKW wrote: >They won't succeed in doing so, but by virtue of their effort to do so, >they constitute a valuable counterweight to the forces of secular nihilism Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 23, 2002 Report Share Posted March 23, 2002 Dear Lehnert, What dust up? You wrote: > > > As I said earlier, you and do not agree. (Correction -- I would hope you > and I will agree that neither of us will be here a hundred years from now > to assess whether your prediction was right.) Lord, I hope not, but with the advance of modern technology, who knows/ > > > > > > > > > > > The widely used statement " evolution is only a theory " holds no water no > far as I am concerned. We also have the theory of gravity and quite a few > others that may be theories but are certainly widely held views. The crucial difference, surely, is that the theory of gravity is testable? Best regards, Dan > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 23, 2002 Report Share Posted March 23, 2002 Dear , You wrote: > > > Since the Biblical myth offers no > *how* to explain itself, Of course it does - God willed it. That's how. Best regards, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 23, 2002 Report Share Posted March 23, 2002 3/23/02 20:35 sampatron@... wrote: >In a message dated 3/23/2002 5:38:22 PM Central Standard Time, >lehnert@... writes: > > >> A clear example of what I mean by actons or attempted actions is the >> attempt to teach our children that Creationism has equal standing as a >> scientific theory with Evolution. >> >> These folks can teach THEIR children that way if that's what they wish >> and they do it outside the public schools. >> >> However, I draw the line at their forcing my children and grandchildren >> to be taught that way in the public schools. > >Dear Lehnert, > >Isn't this a bit of a contradiction? Why shouldn't Creationism be taught in >the public schools and you teach your children about Evolution at home? I >happen to believe in evolution as a scientific principle and that >creationism >is at best a symbolic message, and I believe science supports evolution as >the most likely way we got to where we are, but wouldn't it be possible for >both theories (and evolution is only a theory albeit a very persuasive one) >to be taught as " this is the way some people understand how it all >happened? " > Then the home front is where it could be emphasized, " This is what *we* >believe. " > >Namasté >Sam in Texas §(ô¿ô)§ >Minds are like parachutes; they function best when open. >A closed mind is a good thing to lose. > " Minds are like parachutes; most people use them only as a last resort. " >~Ben Ostrowsky > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 23, 2002 Report Share Posted March 23, 2002 Dan & Sam, My replies to each and both of you are interspersed below. Lehnert N. Riegel wrote: > >A clear example of what I mean by actons or attempted actions > >is the attempt to teach our children that Creationism has equal > >standing as a scientific theory with Evolution. >> 3/23/02 08:19 Dan & Watkins wrote: >Why prefer one unsubstantiated myth over another? Evolutionary >theory is so full of holes that, if it were underwear, you'd use >it for a dust rag. I predict that in one hundred years' time, it >will seems as quaint to us as Lamarkianism does now. Natural >selection, indeed. A likely story :-). > >Best regards, > >dan As I said earlier, you and do not agree. (Correction -- I would hope you and I will agree that neither of us will be here a hundred years from now to assess whether your prediction was right.) In a message dated 3/23/2002 5:38:22 PM Central Standard Time, lehnert@... writes: > >A clear example of what I mean by actons or attempted actions > >is the attempt to teach our children that Creationism has equal > >standing as a scientific theory with Evolution. > >These folks can teach THEIR children that way if that's what > >they wish and they do it outside the public schools. > >However, I draw the line at their forcing my children and > >grandchildren to be taught that way in the public schools. 3/23/02 20:35 sampatron@... wrote: >Isn't this a bit of a contradiction? Why shouldn't Creationism be >taught in the public schools and you teach your children about >Evolution at home? I happen to believe in evolution as a >scientific principle and that creationism is at best a symbolic >message, and I believe science supports evolution as the most >likely way we got to where we are, but wouldn't it be possible >for both theories (and evolution is only a theory albeit a very >persuasive one) to be taught as " this is the way some people >understand how it all happened? " >Then the home front is where it could be emphasized, " This is >what *we* believe. " >Namasté >Sam in Texas §(ô¿ô)§ I see no contradiction. One is a matter of widely held scientific opinion. The other is a matter of religious faith. They are as dissimilar as dirt and rainbows. Put simply, both ideas MAY be wrong but, as with all areas of life, some things are wronger than others (to paraphrase either Carl Sagan or Isaac Asimov, I forget which one). The widely used statement " evolution is only a theory " holds no water no far as I am concerned. We also have the theory of gravity and quite a few others that may be theories but are certainly widely held views. Creationism and its latest incarnation, Intelligent Design, are belief systems that support a given value system. Good for them! But, that doesn't make the Theory of Evolution and Creationism (by any name) comparable as theories. Also, science education is now the appropriate forum for teaching " this is the way some people understand how it all happened. " This little dust-up has perhaps set a JUNG-FIRE record for brevity from start to finish. At least I consider it finished -- I have said all that I can think to say on the subject. Of course you may continue if you wish. Thanks for listening. = _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ = || Lehnert N. Riegel || Fountain Valley, California USA || 33°41'N 117°57'W || lehnert@... || UT -7/8 (standard/daylight savings time) = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 24, 2002 Report Share Posted March 24, 2002 In a message dated 3/24/2002 9:01:20 AM Central Standard Time, anonymous_animus@... writes: > >>Isn't this a bit of a contradiction? Why > shouldn't Creationism be taught in the public schools > and you teach your children about Evolution at home?<< > > --If that's the case, why shouldn't Native American > creation myths or greek myths be taught as " legitimate > theories " in schools? Hi , I'm afraid I got into a bit of a mess over the phrasing of my response to Lehnert. It wasn't my intent to suggest that all theories and premises be given equal weight in teaching in school. I'm afraid I was more incensed by my perception of his apparent holier-than-thou attitude in the phrasing of his statement. I know that if all theories were given equal weight none would be given appropriate development. Probably projection on my part, but to me it felt as if he were saying, " My (the prevailing) idea is more right than yours (the Creationists) and therefore it deserves legal sanction while yours does not, " or words to that effect. That simply didn't sit well with me. Even though I disagree with the Creationists stand, I couldn't agree with his attitude as I saw it. As for other myths, please see my reply to Kurt Vonnegut about the Hopis.<S> Namasté Sam in Texas §(ô¿ô)§ Minds are like parachutes; they function best when open. A closed mind is a good thing to lose. " Minds are like parachutes; most people use them only as a last resort. " ~Ben Ostrowsky Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 25, 2002 Report Share Posted March 25, 2002 Dear : You wrote: > > >>Only to the modern mind. I am trying to free > myself from the mind-forge'd manacles of modernity - > it's not too easy to do so, I'll admit.<< > > --You'll end up amplifying that within yourself which > you project onto " modernity " Not all critques are projections. > and you will find > yourself wrestling with the same problem even as you > retreat into archaic collective forms. Reacting > against something is the best way to incorporate it > into yourself. Obviously there are problems in the > world due to rapid expansion of technology and > population. And of course, classical literature can > offer some ideas on building a system of thought to > hold back the chaos. " some ideas? " How about, the whole blueprint? > But withdrawing into old > containers will only make you brittle. > > And just how many expensive cars would Socrates drive > anyway? None. Socrates was poor. He didn't have anything against wealth, he just didn't think it was worth his time to pursue it. Thoreau said something to the effect that you could earn a dollar in a day (that was a long time ago), and for that dollar you could buy a train ticket for a thirty mile journey - or, in the same day, you could just walk the thirty miles. Best regards, Dan Watkins > > > > __________________________________________________ > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 25, 2002 Report Share Posted March 25, 2002 Dear , You wrote: > > >>You do not take seriously Nietzsche's contention > that the truth might be poisonous.<< > > --If the truth is poisonous, it's because you are > already poisoned. Speaking, as we were, of unsupported assertions... :-). The truth won't harm you if you are > not basing your identity on a falsehood; It might be > painful, confusing, difficult, but it won't be toxic. > Toxicity is created by building your self-image on > unstable foundations, in which case no particular myth > will keep you going forever. Regressing into an > earlier, simpler myth will only cause the inevitable > confrontation to be more painful. Isn't much of > Western culture based on the teachings of a man who > said " the truth will set you free " ? As I have said before, I am not a Christian (although I am certainly not an atheist). I take Christianity seriously as a cultural force and as a " system of psychotherapy " (as Jung calls). I certainly don't take it seriously insofar as it claims to teach the truth. I do take _The Republic_ seriously as a possible teaching of the truth, and in that book it is suggested that the lie is sometimes necessary and even *kalon* (beautiful or noble.) In my view, Christianity, for all its beauty, does not stack up to much in comparison with ancient learning. We have one recorded instance of Jesus crying, and none of him laughing; we have one recored instance of Socrates' laughing, and none of him crying. 'Nuff said. >Not sure how you > can hold to classical systems of truth while saying > the truth is poison. The philosopher is the one who loves truth above all things, and who hates the lie in the soul above all things. He would rather take poison than be prevented from searching out the truth. But most human beings are not philosophers. Philosophy is about the truth, but society stands or falls on shared opinion - collective representations. The classics were fully aware of this fact, and the problems it entails. The early moderns were, too, and tried to solve those problems but, imo, created more problems than they solved. >It would >be nice if tribes could preserve their cultures >against the expansion of corporate and mitaristic >groups, and as much as rainforest and aboriginal >tribes can be given custody of their lands, it should >be done. Show a primitive tribesman a Jeep, or a radio, and he will want one. Give his child an ice cream, and that child will want another ice cream. Here in Arizona, an Indian tribe is vying to build a football stadium. It seems to me that the only people who " value " primitivity are those who don't live it. >--Yeah, scientists running around in labcoats >firebombing seminaries...pretty frightening. Gotta >watch out for those fundamentalists You sure do. We're impressed and horrified at the fact that the Islamic fundies could take out two buildings, but this labcoat gang has taken out two whole cities! Boom! And could do more. Good point :-). Best regards, Dan Watkins Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 25, 2002 Report Share Posted March 25, 2002 >>You do not take seriously Nietzsche's contention that the truth might be poisonous.<< --If the truth is poisonous, it's because you are already poisoned. The truth won't harm you if you are not basing your identity on a falsehood; It might be painful, confusing, difficult, but it won't be toxic. Toxicity is created by building your self-image on unstable foundations, in which case no particular myth will keep you going forever. Regressing into an earlier, simpler myth will only cause the inevitable confrontation to be more painful. Isn't much of Western culture based on the teachings of a man who said " the truth will set you free " ? Not sure how you can hold to classical systems of truth while saying the truth is poison. michael __________________________________________________ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 25, 2002 Report Share Posted March 25, 2002 >>I think that, for fundamentalist Christians, satan carries the shadow. Yates is simply psychotic.<< --Satan has refused the job. If the shadow is carried, it will be carried by people, not ghosts. Attempts to peg evil on mythical beings will only backfire more and more dramatically, until we deal with evil within ourselves and our culture. >>Curious, since fundamentalism predates " rapid progress " by millenia, and perhaps even predates cultural tension. Who is more " fundie " than a primitive tribesman?<< --Fundamentalism as we know it today is a recent thing. Earlier versions were quite different. It would be nice if tribes could preserve their cultures against the expansion of corporate and mitaristic groups, and as much as rainforest and aboriginal tribes can be given custody of their lands, it should be done. But we can't retreat into our own tribal past, it won't work. Especially if we can't see back any farther than Hebrew prophets. __________________________________________________ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 25, 2002 Report Share Posted March 25, 2002 > --That's not a mechanism. I can will my arm to move, > but a biologist would hardly get away without > explaining how nerves, muscles, etc work. The word > " how " implies a chain of cause and effect with > details > supplied, not a big taboo X where the mechanism > should > be. Saying " The dinosaurs died because God willed > it " > is not a valid substitute for a discussion of what > exactly caused extinction, and it would not pass as > science. Why accept such a lack of rigor when > discussing origins? > > The point is, if you have creationism in a *science* > class as some would prefer, you have to open up > religious theories of creation to the same scrutiny > that science allows. A kid who says " Evolution is > crap " in class won't hurt anyone's feelings too > much...but wait till they teach Biblical creationism > and some kid says " The Bible is bullshit " or perhaps > a > more reasoned criticism. Secularism has no concept > of > blasphemy, so ideas can be criticized without fear. > But put religion in science class and kids WILL > criticize and blaspheme, and feelings will be hurt. > Which is fine with me, but I'm not sure proponents > of > creationism (when motivated by scriptural dogma) > will > be happy with it. > > I think you're getting at the root of it here . Here in Kansas we get a steady dose of the heated debates between the fundamentalists (whose greatest fear seems to be the rattling of their traditional and stiff religiosity) and the scientists (who defend the Newtonian-Cartesian world view of - if you can't measure it it can't be true/ or worth " knowing " ). I'm sure someone will call my characterizations unfair; but they are used in a reductive way to illustrate my point. Each is limiting in its dogmatic extreem. It seems to me that the primary responsibility of our schools is to lead our children to the truth (as best we can convey it to them) - and to instruct them as to the better methods of how one might find the truth - as instructive in living their own lives. But the truth is a funny thing; and we tend to hate ambiguity don't we? And truth has many appearances and contexts. Someone stated in a recent post that they were disappointed at learning later in life that they had been taught something as a child that later turned out not to be true. I have experienced this feeling before too - and it hurts. (Remember, when the unconscious is made conscious, it is a defeat to the ego) It feels that you have somehow lived (or believed) a lie, no matter how innocently or well-intentioned it was conveyed originally. Perhaps one of our problems is that our words are inadequate to express the meaning to which they aspire. Somehow the fundies (needing moral absolutes) and the pure hard scientific types (empericists) are both seeking the same thing - the truth. And each, in his own way, has a handle on it. But when the product of their thinking is set side by side - it appears to be contradictory, when in truth it is often just incomplete. They start with different premises, values and methodologies which lead them to different conclusions. Their conclusions are then put into words that speak past one another, rather than to one another. One speaks of habits of God, while one tries to dissect the rationale behind those habits. They seem as dissimilar as one who, when trying to explain the beauty of music when heard, tries to explain it by analyzing the musical notes of the composer while another describes the construction of the violin. They talk past one another, miss the point, but still appreciate the music - in quite different ways. The business of " progress " we have made as a species can be described in two ways (as Lehnart has reminded us recently). One is linearly (using time and space as its context) while the other is vertically (in terms of consciousness). The former has been more the focus of the scientific mind throughout the past 600 years, while the latter is more the domain of the spiritual (non-provable, but only acsertained via a type of gnosis - or experience, or via rationalization by belief), thus outside the domain of scientific (requiring objective, repeatable " proof " ) worldview - at least as it has developed thus far. But this is now changing - thankfully. Science and Spirit seem to be warming up to one another in the Age we are entering. The fragility of our world (and the future of our species in it) now require that the two begin to work in harmony, if we are to survive. Maybe this is notion behind the balancing scale in the archetypal/astrological symbol of Aquarius (perhaps Alice could comment). IMO we are now on the verge of a time when these two ways of looking at the world, both desperately desiring truth, can begin to respect and draw from the other. And the skirmishes of Creationism/Scientism are only the opening salvos in a prolonged battle between the two camps - each containing fundamentalist dogmatists extremists. And, whether the subject is a new ethic (requiring dialog between those spiritually inclined) or understanding nature, it seems that the truth is most likely to emerge among the mystical end of the spectrum of those in dialog. I do have confidence that truth will eventually emerge, as we hang onto the aparent opposites until the synthesis becomes clear. But a fruitful dialog, in which both sides begin to grasp a new version of " the " truth requires respect for the other. Developing our listening skills will aid the process too. Our consciousness (knowing) naturally operates dualistically, while the real truth can be found in the depths of the yet unknown. Greg __________________________________________________ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 25, 2002 Report Share Posted March 25, 2002 >>Perhaps one of our problems is that our words are inadequate to express the meaning to which they aspire.<< --One reason people tend to stay with their own group rather than bridging the various schisms in our culture. Words mean more in context than they do abstracted, and people generally don't learn to reconstruct context from subtle cues. Added to that, religion and science are different languages speaking to different parts of the brain. There's no reason someone can't speak both languages, but it's difficult to mediate between people who only speak from one side of the brain each. I would start from the assumption that all things are reconciled when the proper language is found. Science has plenty of room for imagination and mystical perception, and religion shouldn't conflict with science if it's flexible (one would expect the natural language of the unconscious or soul to be adaptable and fluid). When languages conflict, it's usually because neither side has the ability to work in two contexts simultaneously. I'm sure there are ways to teach that skill, but schools aren't teaching it, and neither are churches or community groups. And without that ability, I don't think the mind can reach anything resembling " truth " ...it can only isolate fragments of reality, strip them of context and generalize them into dogma. __________________________________________________ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 25, 2002 Report Share Posted March 25, 2002 >>And the skirmishes of Creationism/Scientism are only the opening salvos in a prolonged battle between the two camps - each containing fundamentalist dogmatists extremists.<< --Yeah, scientists running around in labcoats firebombing seminaries...pretty frightening. Gotta watch out for those fundamentalists __________________________________________________ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 25, 2002 Report Share Posted March 25, 2002 , I have just finished reading for the second time since the first didn't penetrate too well, Von Franz's book on Jung's theory of synchronicity. (Book has same title) She speaks a lot about the western rational scientific mind versus the eastern more intuitive way of understanding cause and effect. You might find it interesting. cause and effect is not always the answer she says. Toni wrote: > > Since the Biblical myth offers no > > *how* to explain itself, > > Of course it does - God willed it. That's how. > << > > --That's not a mechanism. I can will my arm to move, > but a biologist would hardly get away without > explaining how nerves, muscles, etc work. The word > " how " implies a chain of cause and effect with details > supplied, not a big taboo X where the mechanism should > be. Saying " The dinosaurs died because God willed it " > is not a valid substitute for a discussion of what > exactly caused extinction, and it would not pass as > science. Why accept such a lack of rigor when > discussing origins? > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 25, 2002 Report Share Posted March 25, 2002 > --Yeah, scientists running around in labcoats > firebombing seminaries...pretty frightening. Gotta > watch out for those fundamentalists Cute. Anyone who doesn't believe that there are academic " fundamentalists " hasn't spent much time in a university lately. And dogmatic rigidity is found in virtually every field. My meaning here is best expressed by Stan Grof in his BEYOND THE BRAIN: " Rigid adherence to the Newtonian-Cartesian paradigm has had particularly detrimental consequences for the practice of psychotherapy. It is largely responsible for the inappropriate application of the medical model to areas of psychiatry that deal with problems of living, rather than diseases. The image of the universe created by Western science is a pragmatically useful construct that helps to organize presently available observations and data. However, it has been generally mistaken for an accurate and comprehensive description of reality. As a result of this epistemological error, perceptual and cognitive congruence with the Newtonian-Cartesian world view is considered essential for mental health and normalcy (pg 25)... The stupendous technical achievements of this science, which have the potential for solving most of the material problems that plague humanity, have backfired. Their energy, space-age rocketry, cybernetics, lasers, computers and other electronic gadgets, and the miracles of modern chemistry and bacteriology - have turned into a vital danger and a living nightmare. As a result, we have a world divided politically and ideologically, which is critically threatened by economic crises, industrial pollution and the spector of nuclear war. In view of this situation, more and more people are questioning the usefulness of precipitate technological progress that is not harnessed and controlled by emotionally mature individuals and a species sufficiently evolved to handle constructively the powerful tools it has created. " (p 27) The above comparison makes " firebombing seminaries " (not so different from those made by Jung just after WWII)look like childs play. Some of the greatest benefits, as well as the greatest evils that presently plague mankind were hatched in the university (the laboratory of the prevailing Zeitgeist). The fate of mankind still hangs by the same thin thread - the psyche of man/woman (whether it be an inventor's or otherwise). And our world reflects to us how thinly stretched it is. Greg __________________________________________________ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 25, 2002 Report Share Posted March 25, 2002 Dear , You wrote: > >>We're impressed and horrified at the > fact that the Islamic > fundies could take out two buildings, but this > labcoat gang has taken > out two whole cities! Boom! And could do more. > Good point :-)<< > > --If your problem is with the military use of science, > I agree with you. I just don't think science in > general is a source of spiritual decay...but the > military-industrial-media complex might be. Technology will *always* be put to use for military purposes. That's human nature. It was ever thus, from the time that somebody first discovered that he could throw a stone harder with a sling than he could with his arm alone. There has never, to my knowledge, been a weapons sytem developed that has not been used. Jung says that guns left in storage will eventually go off by themselves. My gripe is not with these facts of life, but with science's apparent willingness to ignore them for its own selfish ends - hence: " Science is value neutral. " " We deal in facts, not ethics. " " We just discover the knowledge - the way you apply it is up to you. That's nothing to do with us. " The only thing that might partially excuse such teaching is rank stupidity on the part of its purveyors. Now, maybe most scientists are, outside their own fields of professional endeavor, just stupid - but I doubt it. That would not fit with what I think I know about human intelligence. To me, the situation appears more sinister than that. Galileo was either a selfish bastard, or a fool. Either way, the Church was, imo, perfectly correct to try to shut him up. The effort failed - it was too little, too late - but it was a noble effort anyway. If I give whiskey and car keys to teenaged boys, I am responsible for the predictable results. If I don't know what the results are likely to be, then I should not have access to whiskey or car keys myself. Best regards, Dan Watkins > > > __________________________________________________ > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 25, 2002 Report Share Posted March 25, 2002 Dear , You wrote: > >> " some ideas? " How about, the whole blueprint?<< > > --Do you really think that Classical authors, given > today's understanding of the mind, I am not convinced that anyone, including Jung, knew more about the " mind " - the soul, or human nature - than did the best of the ancients. Jung did rediscover it, and his work is a bit more accessible to us. > of evolution and > history, Not sure what you mean by history - if you mean historicism, either in the Hegelian/Marxist sense or the Nietzschean sense, I think the ancients were aware of both possibilities. Surely they knew from Heraclitus. The _Theatetus_ is all about historicist relativism, it just doesn't use those terms. Evolution? Things change. Species have changed. That's all we know. The ancients knew that. They were not Biblical. > would leave their work unchanged? Would Aristotle change his _Physics_? Maybe, but only in response, I suggest, to the changed political climate. The _Physics_ may well be an esoteric book, as I believe Bollotin (sp?) has suggested. I haven't gotten around to reading his book yet, though. > The > assumption that any dead author would not update > his/her views if they were still living is myopic. They might well, to repeat, to change their rhetoric to accommodate changes in the political climate, but the unchanging things are the unchanging things. If author X has knowledge of some of the unchanging things, there is no need for him to change his view. (True) science is not progressive (technology is, but that's not the same thing.) All progression in knowledge is individual. We don't " build " knowledge on the foundations of past discovery, as a collective enterprise. Hardly anyone knows that E=MC squared - indeed, I don't know it. For me, it's just a rumour. Everything you learned in Philosophy of Science 101 is bunk, unless you attended an extraordinarily good university. Best regards, Dan > > Some of their ideas would be more or less the same, > some would be updated, and some would be changed > entirely. You still have to decide which, however much > you idealize the author. > > > > __________________________________________________ > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 25, 2002 Report Share Posted March 25, 2002 Dear , You wrote: > Dear Dan > > At 09:54 PM 3/25/02 -0700, you wrote: > > > > N: Like many, if not most on two lists, I find your position on this ever > so puzzling. For me the puzzlement is that you don't reevaluate your views > on wisdom, values and God. How is it that you view Galileo as either a > 'selfish bastard' or a fool? He either knew what the social/political consequences of the broadcasting of his evidence of the heliocentric nature of the solar system would be, or he did not. If he did not, he was a fool, as it should have been perfectly obvious what the consequences would be. On the other hand, if he did know what those consequences would be, but just didn't care because it was more important for him to broadcast his findings (out of pride, desire for honor, whatever), that makes him, in my book, a selfish bastard. > What is it that he did that you think he > should have been able to predict the undesirable outcome(s)? Keep his discoveries to himself, or if he absolutely had to communicate them to his equals, hide them in esoteric texts, behind a bland and salutary exoteric or " surface " text that would not harm the casual or ordinary reader. > If you > subscribe to Creationism, how is it that you suppose the freewill > opterative, in Eden and now in regard to technology is not within the > choices he allows us? I don't subscribe to creationism. I have no real opinion on the origin of species. I don't believe in " free will " in the Christian sense. I believe in reason, and that human action can be guided by reason, but that's not the same thing. > Is not part of his univeral plan? (Maybe Its would > be more appropriate.) How is it any more outrageous that we use technology > to wage war than it is that species generally come and go? Do you feel that humanity is just another species, whose obliteration is of no more imprtance than that of the dinosaurs? The problem is not techne as such. man as man wages war, and man is the tool making animal. He will use tools to wage war. What modern science has done, however, is systematize the procedure in such a way as to put the forces of nature in the service of the unleashed human passions in a way that had never been done before. This was a deliberate project. The ancients knew that such a thing could be done, but chose not to do it. > > I don't think your example of teenager, whiskey and cars quite works on a > cosmic plane. I'm not talking about a cosmic plane. I'm talking about an ordinary, down-to-earth, human political plane. > It seems to me that whatever we designate as God is quite > willing that we, as a species, should learn through experience, even > experience that is deadly to the individual entity. > Do you disagree with the above? I know virtually nothing of God. I can neither agree nor disagree. > You express some liking of the Greeks and > their gods, most, if not all of whom went right into battle with humanity > in the Trojan conflict. The Trojan horse was a perfectly good example of > technology. My gripe is not against tools as such. Perhaps it will be clearer if I suggest that the ancients had tools and arts (techne) but not technology. Technology as it is pursued by modernity is almost a regime, an " ideaology, " a way of life in a way that it was not for the ancients. > > Maybe you'd care to elaborate a bit on just how you Do see the God force? As I said, I know a little about the gods, but really nothing about God. I have no opinion about the God force - I don't even know if there is such a thing. Best regards, Dan > > > Blessings, > > > " Our highest duty as human beings is to search out a means whereby beings may be freed from all kinds of unsatisfactory experience and suffering. " > > H.H. Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th. Dalai Lama > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 26, 2002 Report Share Posted March 26, 2002 In a message dated 3/26/2002 10:17:46 AM Central Standard Time, toni@... writes: > The hubris of those who know a lot , and think science answers all > questions, can be a temptation, I would think, unless in the end they were > as > humble as Einstein. > " I am enough of an artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world. " -- Albert Einstein Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 26, 2002 Report Share Posted March 26, 2002 >>We're impressed and horrified at the fact that the Islamic fundies could take out two buildings, but this labcoat gang has taken out two whole cities! Boom! And could do more. Good point :-)<< --If your problem is with the military use of science, I agree with you. I just don't think science in general is a source of spiritual decay...but the military-industrial-media complex might be. __________________________________________________ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.