Guest guest Posted February 22, 2006 Report Share Posted February 22, 2006 Dear , We are actually, although we have not honored his memory well over the past few centuries. best, Dan > > > Date: 2006/02/21 Tue PM 04:55:57 PST > To: JUNG-FIRE > Subject: socrates > > > Dan says: > >>Socrates broke the law. He introduced new gods into the city. He to all > intents and purposes admitted it, then compounded the offence by > taunting the judges. It's like he was asking for it.<< > > --And we are in his debt for it. > > > > > > --------------------------------- > Yahoo! Mail > Use Photomail to share photos without annoying attachments. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 22, 2006 Report Share Posted February 22, 2006 Dan I think that if Socrates actually thought 'enemy' then even you would not remember the guy above any other.. Strange you should raise his image as a counter point to justifying 'collective enemy. But sure! let it drop even though I remain confounded that you can still 'think' that way after so much inner work on yourself........ F. > Dear , > > We are actually, although we have not honored his memory well over the > past few centuries. > > best, > > Dan > > > > > > > Date: 2006/02/21 Tue PM 04:55:57 PST > > To: JUNG-FIRE > > Subject: socrates > > > > > > Dan says: > > >>Socrates broke the law. He introduced new gods into the city. He > > >>to all > > intents and purposes admitted it, then compounded the offence by > > taunting the judges. It's like he was asking for it.<< > > > > --And we are in his debt for it. > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------- > > Yahoo! Mail > > Use Photomail to share photos without annoying attachments. > > > > > > " 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 February 25, 2006 Report Share Posted February 25, 2006 Carol Spicuzza wrote: Dear Carol, Dan: > One problem as I see it is that what we know now as science is necessarily > soulless. It starts with a metaphysical presumption of materialism - > nature consists of dead matter in motion. Even living things are said to > be derived from dead things, from death. The world is dead. The theory of > evolution is the expression of this view par excellance. Carol: Do I understand you if I say that you're agreeing with Jung when he says that Christianity has created the problem because it doesn't recognize the spirit an matter? I don't know that he blames Christianity as such - Protestantism, maybe. Christianity was around a long time before nature was "killed" by science. Nietzsche doesn't say that God was an illusion or a mistake (as, for example, Marx does) - he says that God died. What confuses me is that you seem to be trying to say that the theory of evolution can't allow for the transcendent. On its own terms, it cannot. To allow for the transcendent is to allow for "intelligent design," and that is anathema. Science, it appears to me, insists on philosophic materialism, or that the world is basically dead. Whatever a scientist's personal opinions may be, qua scientist he must proceed as though an atheist - or at least this is what I gather from the scientific defenders of evolution. Best regards, Dan Carol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 25, 2006 Report Share Posted February 25, 2006 Dan and Watkins writes: >> Carol: >> What confuses me is that you seem to be trying to say that >> the theory of evolution can't allow for the transcendent. >On its own terms, it cannot. To allow for the transcendent is to allow >for " intelligent design, " and that is anathema. Science, it appears to >me, insists on philosophic materialism, or that the world is basically >dead. Whatever a scientist's personal opinions may be, qua scientist he >must proceed as though an atheist - or at least this is what I gather >from the scientific defenders of evolution. >Best regards, >Dan A scientist must certainly proceed as an _agnostic_ in order to be a proper scientist. Modern science is founded on the principle of naturalism. Explanations for the phenomenal world must be sought in the phenomenal world. Working out 'reasonable explanations' by sheer speculation that are not provable in the phenomenal world is metaphysics, not science. Science is only about verifiable/repeatable empirical evidence. That doesn't mean that a person who is a scientist must necessarily be an agnostic or atheist, though. There are things that science simply cannot grasp. There are things that religion simply cannot grasp, too. It's true that the historical background that modern science developed out of -- constant conflict with an absolutist church -- has left a pretty strong 'institutional memory' of hostility and so many scientists are in fact agnostics or atheists. But this is not essential to being a scientist. I find it interesting that the greatest scientific minds tend to be religious even if the majority of scientists are not. Maybe the scientists who do not totally identify with their job title are better scientists for that? (viz, Jung on identifying with one's social role below...) That science cannot _disprove_ God anymore than metaphysics can _prove_ God is something that too many scientists don't seem to understand. So the crowing about evolution 'disproving' religion (and yes there most certainly were claims of that, even from some prominent scientists, when Darwin's theory was published, and some even continue to claim this today) is just as much bunk as this new crypto-creationist attempt at science called 'Intelligent Design'. I have too many interests or I'd have a decent summary of the logic knot that 'science' and 'religion' are fighting over. To put it very crudely, the scienctific community is violating its own principles by sticking rigidly to Darwinism despite the huge evidence that the theory is too simple to explain the new complexities discovered since it was originally proposed, and doing this out of a social group or 'institutional' resistance to religion (spite, really). Life must be explainable at the level of complexity proposed by Darwin because this was the device that overthrew religion in the public sphere and any admission of flaws in it would seem to be 'concession' to religion. Imagine an attitude like this in physics where Newton was rigidly adhered to and all the weird things coming out of physics experiments were forced into the Newtonian model (or ignored) just to avoid admitting that it wasn't comprehensive enough. Even 'lay' people would start to doubt the validity of physics after a while, and weird new theories (like a revival of animism) could be proposed by anyone with a pretty good chance of being believed. Fortunately, physics was able to admit that it was time for a new theory, and Einstein was in just the right time and place to write the definitive papers that made his career. On the other hand, the judge in Pennsylvania is right. " Intelligent Design " is not science. It's slightly updated myth-making. The only reason it has any credibility is _precisely_ because science has failed to adapt to the evidence. Rigid adherence to a _scientific_ dogma has had the same result as rigid adherence to religious dogma -- it has provoked compensating doubt. Even 'educated scientists' who have leaned the rote of their profession, but not good reasoning, are falling into the 'either/or' trap of thinking that Darwinism is equivalent to science itself and if Darwinism doesn't work then science is wrong and the religious explanation must be right. Hello, has anyone considered a NEW THEORY? But if an actual scientist tries to even amend Darwin he gets his head bitten off. (viz, J. Gould and 'Puntuated Equilibrium'.) So both sides of this debate are proceeding on very large errors of logic, but since when was politics ever about logic? The conflict is of course about political power, and so both sides will use whatever propaganda techniques work (i.e. whatever will convince the general public, which doesn't reason well anyway, and so can be swayed by these tricks). --- Since psychic inflation is by no means a phenomenon induced exclusively by analysis, but occurs just as often in ordinary life, we can investigate it equally well in other cases. A very common instance is the humorless way in which many men identify themselves with their business or their titles. The office I hold is certainly my special activity; but it is also a collective factor that has come into existence historically through the cooperation of many people and whose dignity rests solely on collective approval. When, therefore, I identify myself with my office or title, I behave as though I myself were the whole complex of social factors of which that office consists, or as though I were not only the bearer of the office, but also and at the same time the approval of society. I have made an extraordinary extension of myself and have usurped qualities which are not in me but outside me. Relations Between the Ego and the Unconscious (1928), CW 7: Para. 227, pg. 143 --- If psychology remains for us only a science, we do not penetrate into life -- we merely serve the absolute aim of science. It leads us, certainly, to knowledge of the objective situation, but it always opposes every other aim but its own. The intellect remains imprisoned in itself just so long as it does not willingly sacrifice its supremacy by recognizing the value of other aims. It shrinks from the step which takes it out of itself and which denies its universal validity, since from the standpoint of the intellect everything else is nothing but fantasy. But what great thing ever come into existence that was not first fantasy? Inasmuch as the intellect rigidly adheres to the absolute aim of science it cuts itself off from the springs of life. Psychological Types (1921), CW 6: Para. 86, pg. 59 --- Yet one should never forget that science is simply a matter of intellect, and that intellect is only one among several fundamental psychic functions and therefore does not suffice to give a complete picture of the world. For this another function -- feeling -- is needed too. Feeling often arrives at convictions that are different from those of the intellect, and we cannot always prove that the convictions of feeling are necessarily inferior. We also have subliminal perceptions of the unconscious which are not at the disposal of the intellect and are therefore missing in a purely intellectual picture of the world. So we have every reason to grant our intellect only a limited validity. But when we work with the intellect, we must proceed scientifically and adhere to empirical principles until irrefutable evidence against their validity is forthcoming. The Psychological Foundations of Belief in Spirits (1920), CW 8: para. 600, pg. 318 --- The conflict between science and religion is in reality a misunderstanding of both. Scientific materialism has merely introduced a new hypostasis, and that is an intellectual sin. It has given another name to the supreme principle of reality and has assumed that this created a new thing and destroyed an old thing. Whether you call the principle of existence " God, " " matter, " " energy, " or anything else you like, you have created nothing; you have simply changed a symbol. .... Faith, on the other hand, tries to retain a primitive mental condition on merely sentimental grounds. It is unwilling to give up the primitive, childlike relationship to mind-created and hypostatized figures; it wants to go on enjoying the security and confidence of a world still presided over by powerful, responsible, and kindly parents. Psychological Commentary on " The Tibertan Book of the Great Liberation " (1939/1954), CW 11: para. 763, pg. 477 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 26, 2006 Report Share Posted February 26, 2006 Zimmerman wrote: A scientist must certainly proceed as an _agnostic_ in order to be a proper scientist. As you wish. I believe the final effect is the same. Modern science is founded on the principle of naturalism. Assuming you mean the same thing as I meant by "materialism," this is true. Explanations for the phenomenal world must be sought in the phenomenal world. Working out 'reasonable explanations' by sheer speculation that are not provable in the phenomenal world is metaphysics, not science. My understanding of metaphysics is that it is the science that articulates the conditions under which the other sciences, and the whole of knowledge, are possible. That is, it is the effort to articulate Being or the grounding of beings. Best regards, dan Watkins Science is only about verifiable/repeatable empirical evidence. That doesn't mean that a person who is a scientist must necessarily be an agnostic or atheist, though. There are things that science simply cannot grasp. There are things that religion simply cannot grasp, too. It's true that the historical background that modern science developed out of -- constant conflict with an absolutist church -- has left a pretty strong 'institutional memory' of hostility and so many scientists are in fact agnostics or atheists. But this is not essential to being a scientist. It is not essential to the scientist as person, as individual - it is essential to the scientist as scientist, however. I find it interesting that the greatest scientific minds tend to be religious even if the majority of scientists are not. Maybe the scientists who do not totally identify with their job title are better scientists for that? (viz, Jung on identifying with one's social role below...) That science cannot _disprove_ God anymore than metaphysics can _prove_ God is something that too many scientists don't seem to understand. So the crowing about evolution 'disproving' religion (and yes there most certainly were claims of that, even from some prominent scientists, when Darwin's theory was published, and some even continue to claim this today) is just as much bunk as this new crypto-creationist attempt at science called 'Intelligent Design'. I have too many interests or I'd have a decent summary of the logic knot that 'science' and 'religion' are fighting over. To put it very crudely, the scienctific community is violating its own principles by sticking rigidly to Darwinism despite the huge evidence that the theory is too simple to explain the new complexities discovered since it was originally proposed, and doing this out of a social group or 'institutional' resistance to religion (spite, really). Life must be explainable at the level of complexity proposed by Darwin because this was the device that overthrew religion in the public sphere and any admission of flaws in it would seem to be 'concession' to religion. Imagine an attitude like this in physics where Newton was rigidly adhered to and all the weird things coming out of physics experiments were forced into the Newtonian model (or ignored) just to avoid admitting that it wasn't comprehensive enough. Even 'lay' people would start to doubt the validity of physics after a while, and weird new theories (like a revival of animism) could be proposed by anyone with a pretty good chance of being believed. Fortunately, physics was able to admit that it was time for a new theory, and Einstein was in just the right time and place to write the definitive papers that made his career. On the other hand, the judge in Pennsylvania is right. "Intelligent Design" is not science. It's slightly updated myth-making. The only reason it has any credibility is _precisely_ because science has failed to adapt to the evidence. Rigid adherence to a _scientific_ dogma has had the same result as rigid adherence to religious dogma -- it has provoked compensating doubt. Even 'educated scientists' who have leaned the rote of their profession, but not good reasoning, are falling into the 'either/or' trap of thinking that Darwinism is equivalent to science itself and if Darwinism doesn't work then science is wrong and the religious explanation must be right. Hello, has anyone considered a NEW THEORY? But if an actual scientist tries to even amend Darwin he gets his head bitten off. (viz, J. Gould and 'Puntuated Equilibrium'.) So both sides of this debate are proceeding on very large errors of logic, but since when was politics ever about logic? The conflict is of course about political power, and so both sides will use whatever propaganda techniques work (i.e. whatever will convince the general public, which doesn't reason well anyway, and so can be swayed by these tricks). --- Since psychic inflation is by no means a phenomenon induced exclusively by analysis, but occurs just as often in ordinary life, we can investigate it equally well in other cases. A very common instance is the humorless way in which many men identify themselves with their business or their titles. The office I hold is certainly my special activity; but it is also a collective factor that has come into existence historically through the cooperation of many people and whose dignity rests solely on collective approval. When, therefore, I identify myself with my office or title, I behave as though I myself were the whole complex of social factors of which that office consists, or as though I were not only the bearer of the office, but also and at the same time the approval of society. I have made an extraordinary extension of myself and have usurped qualities which are not in me but outside me. Relations Between the Ego and the Unconscious (1928), CW 7: Para. 227, pg. 143 --- If psychology remains for us only a science, we do not penetrate into life -- we merely serve the absolute aim of science. It leads us, certainly, to knowledge of the objective situation, but it always opposes every other aim but its own. The intellect remains imprisoned in itself just so long as it does not willingly sacrifice its supremacy by recognizing the value of other aims. It shrinks from the step which takes it out of itself and which denies its universal validity, since from the standpoint of the intellect everything else is nothing but fantasy. But what great thing ever come into existence that was not first fantasy? Inasmuch as the intellect rigidly adheres to the absolute aim of science it cuts itself off from the springs of life. Psychological Types (1921), CW 6: Para. 86, pg. 59 --- Yet one should never forget that science is simply a matter of intellect, and that intellect is only one among several fundamental psychic functions and therefore does not suffice to give a complete picture of the world. For this another function -- feeling -- is needed too. Feeling often arrives at convictions that are different from those of the intellect, and we cannot always prove that the convictions of feeling are necessarily inferior. We also have subliminal perceptions of the unconscious which are not at the disposal of the intellect and are therefore missing in a purely intellectual picture of the world. So we have every reason to grant our intellect only a limited validity. But when we work with the intellect, we must proceed scientifically and adhere to empirical principles until irrefutable evidence against their validity is forthcoming. The Psychological Foundations of Belief in Spirits (1920), CW 8: para. 600, pg. 318 --- The conflict between science and religion is in reality a misunderstanding of both. Scientific materialism has merely introduced a new hypostasis, and that is an intellectual sin. It has given another name to the supreme principle of reality and has assumed that this created a new thing and destroyed an old thing. Whether you call the principle of existence "God," "matter," "energy," or anything else you like, you have created nothing; you have simply changed a symbol. .... Faith, on the other hand, tries to retain a primitive mental condition on merely sentimental grounds. It is unwilling to give up the primitive, childlike relationship to mind-created and hypostatized figures; it wants to go on enjoying the security and confidence of a world still presided over by powerful, responsible, and kindly parents. Psychological Commentary on "The Tibertan Book of the Great Liberation" (1939/1954), CW 11: para. 763, pg. 477 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.