Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
MikeL has a pretty conventional point-of-view which is at its essence that the only thing that really matters, that can convey value, that has validity, or has the possibility of revealing truth, is what humans experience and share among themselves.
He goes so far as to say that all that reality is is what humans experience.
Science has been successful in explaining many many things that philosophy couldn't. Perhaps science couldn't answer many of the philosophical questions, but it is also possible that those questions were not answerable, and perhaps not even relevant.
The sciences, once a divide set of seemingly unrelated disciplines, are increasingly unified as we learn more about each, and the power of addressing questions also increases. It is not an evil conspiracy to use science to become a philosophy of life, that's not the program, but if science is able to be that, so what? If it satisfies the curiosity why wouldn't you want to have it? even as a guide to life. There are certainly a set of terrible philosophies one could choose and be worse off.
As with religion, so with philosophy I reckon... that is, as science expands its domain of explaining things: albeit imperfect, finite, provisional, approximate, "only a model," "only a theory," etc... it puts philosophy out of business... we don't need angels to guide the planets in their orbits anymore, this probably has led to an unemployment crisis among heavenly beings...
If things like "free will" are understood from a scientific point-of-view, what would philosophy do? suddenly the range of discussion is reduced by the terrible reductionist empirical science which is unfortunately good at predicting the outcome of situations... and amazingly useful to innovate new technologies, etc...
...we could argue that such studies be forbidden because of the dire consequences of possessing that knowledge, but science does not have a way of hiding things, it is a method, a process for understanding that can't be stopped.
I can appreciate my existence, I can celebrate our brief time together now, my outlook, informed by science, tells me that this isn't very common, nor is it unusual or special or meaningful. Mostly the universe goes on without any notice, one way or the other, of our existence.
Science doesn't hinder my appreciation of these things, it enhances it, and informs my life choices. Why would you argue that it is less valid than the basis of any other philosophy?
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Okinawa, Japan
|
|
I think Ed just got to the heart of the matter for some of us at least. Science is more than just a powerful tool for exploring the physical universe. It is also a powerful belief system. It probably didn't start out that way, but it has become that, particularly in material oriented America.
He's right that it is not the worst of the various philosophies one can believe in, but I would argue that it's also not the best. Primarily however, I would argue that believing in any single philosophy is very limiting and cuts one off from the full range of human culture, values, and experiences.
Personally, I prefer to sample as many varieties of outlook and experience as possible in my short time here on this planet, in this lifetime. I have also observed, that American culture in particular, seems very uni-dimensional when viewed from the outside, even from the vantage point of western Europe, but especially Asia.
This is what I think Mike L is getting at when he says science and rationalism have swallowed everything, everything except religious fundamentalism that is. What science and fundamentalism share it seems to me, is a unidimensional philosophy that they each alone are sufficient to explain human life, culture, and values.
I will say again that even the poorest, most illiterate Nepalese villagers are remarkable for their multidimensionality. Well aware of different religions and ethnic groups, speaking several languages from vastly different grammar systems even though they are illiterate, living amidst the complexities of extended families, castes, classes, and ethnicities, participating in religions that are 4,000 and more years old, which in Asia always blend several religions at once, their worldview is so much more complex and rich than ours.
The only thing lacking in fact is some knowledge of science and when they acquire that, then it seems to me that they are much more fully developed humans than educated people in the West, especially Americans, with our overly specialized educations and our rationalized efficiency-first values, our fractured and fragmented families and communities. The shortcomings in our society also explain it seems to me, our greater levels of violence, mental illness, drug addiction and general ennui compared to people who are materially so much worse off than us.
Recalling healeyje's model of the brain/mind, might we also not worry that by so concentrating on rationalism alone, we could endanger our brain's plasticity over time and its ability to function as a multi-layered organ?
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Okinawa, Japan
|
|
I'm glad you can appreciate the main gist of what I'm trying to say but I have to make a few corrections here.
First of all, Nepal was never Shangri La nor Tibet either. Secondly although every book about the place refers to its "timelessness" that's entirely from the western perspective. The actual history is quite complicated and related to many other events in the world as far away as the Mongols and the Persians in traditional times, and globalization in more recent ones.
However, I will argue any day that a Nepalese from a remote village who goes to work in the Gulf States or a Sherpa who works with both western climbers and the nouveau riche of East Asia and especially if they travel to those countries afterwards, has a far broader and more nuanced view of the world than the average American and has certainly seen more change in one lifetime than any American. Likewise Gurkha soldiers serving in England or India, religious pilgrims to both Tibet and India, etc. etc.
It will be interesting of course, though I won't be around to see it, to look at how they have fared after several more generations of modernization. Judging from the Japanese, I am very optimistic however, that Asia will provide a more humane model of development than what we have subjected ourselves to.
|
|
Dr.Sprock
Boulder climber
I'm James Brown, Bi-atch!
|
|
Mental Masturbation
The act of engaging in useless yet intellectually stimulating conversation, usually as an excuse to avoid taking constructive action in your life.
Guy 1: "If only I had taken Cindy to my high school prom, I could have f*#ked her instead of that loser Jeff and then now she would be my girlfriend."
Guy 2: "Dude, stop that mental masturbation right now and go out and meet a new girl!"
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Now Sprock
It's OK man
But please put the bong down and take a few good natural breaths once in a while too .....
|
|
Dr.Sprock
Boulder climber
I'm James Brown, Bi-atch!
|
|
ok, alright,
sure you got a headache,
if you are old, you will remember this,
To a goalie, its a save save save
to a surfer, its a wave wave wave
to a colonel, its a regiment,
to a smoker, its a Kent,
|
|
Dr.Sprock
Boulder climber
I'm James Brown, Bi-atch!
|
|
my brain looks like a smurf on crack?
oh boy.
what do I tell mom?
does this explain my sexual orientation?
|
|
Dr.Sprock
Boulder climber
I'm James Brown, Bi-atch!
|
|
that brain on the left is only 35 percent defective,
if we only use 10 percent, then i can still occupy wall street and not get sprayed for doing something weird to rush limbaugh?
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 8, 2011 - 08:56am PT
|
Perhaps science couldn't answer many of the philosophical questions, but it is also possible that those questions were not answerable, and perhaps not even relevant.
''''''''''''''''
I am not sniping here, but I translate that to . . . but it is also possible that those questions are not quantifiable, and the unquantifable is not even relevant.
If this assessment is correct, then Ed considers his principal human reality, subjective experience, as irrelevant since it is not quantifable by normal means, unless Ed is also saying objective functioning and experience are the same things, that Venus is Mars.
And I don´t get that impression looking at Ed´s photos . . .
JL
|
|
krutley
climber
here, now
|
|
John -
Two words: know thyself
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Okinawa, Japan
|
|
Here's some science of mind for you - Fritz's thread on the astrology of personality and climbing.
My sign is Pisces. Now see if this doesn't fit.
"Pisces is always looking for the meaning of life and not finding it. Or finding it and not liking it.
They view rocks and horse-shit as mystical symbols".
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 8, 2011 - 03:09pm PT
|
John -
Two words: know thyself
'''''''''
Ah men to that.
|
|
MikeL
climber
SANTA CLARA, CA
|
|
(I can always rely upon Ed. Thanks,)
Ed, I'm not for philosophy; in fact, I think its time has come and gone for the most part. I suppose I am a bit friendly to postmodern sensibilities, perhaps because they have been far more self-reflective.
What really goes on "beyond experience?" Well, gosh . . . I don't know. I don't think many other people do, either.
Spock said that it's all mental masturbation. Maybe he's right. We should say nothing. If we did, we would show great intelligence and wisdom in the Tao.
You're right, Ed. There is no stopping curiosity and the desire for knowledge. One day it will make us gods. We need to have no respect for mana, the luminosum, magic, instincts, emotions, and myths. Why should we? None of it fits in anymore.
I appreciate that science and the mental rational mind allows Ed to appreciate things. I would argue that art and ethics do, too. All those means to understanding have validity. Like Jan says, it is hoped that no one dominant understanding overwhelms the others. Indeed, why must any perspective be rejected? Why can't we have access to them and use them all? In my heart of hearts, I believe that is no longer possible socially today. One perspective is vacating the others.
Healyje, "crass?" I provided a contemporary example (the PBS report about the responses to Plan B's legislative failure). What do you think makes my observation so crude and unrefined as to be lacking in discrimination and sensibility? Are you implying that people don't rely upon recent findings in science to determine the values by which they should live?
Oh, come on. I have students who preach to me that "time is money," that personnel in organizations are "human resources" amenable to social engineering, and who tell me the purpose of their education is equal to a positive net present value calculation. (I can go on, . . . and so can you if you think about it a little bit.) Are those the kinds of things that makes life worth living?
Oh god, I hope not.
Krutley: it's not nearly as easy as it seems (knowing thyself). It takes eons of lifetimes.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Krutley: it's not nearly as easy as it seems (knowing thyself). It takes eons of lifetimes.
It can be done in one lifetime with the proper teacher and following the instructions ......
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 8, 2011 - 04:15pm PT
|
The idea there is a monolithic 'self' to me is an illusion at best and part of the reason pinning it down in isolation tanks, meditating, or in flow is n't necessarily a simply or easy affair.
_
I missed this one.
Th idea of a single, coherent self is largely an illusion unless one has done a massive amount of work to consolidate that kind of center. Otherwise we´re all driven by a bunch of sub personalities. Perhaps the best and most lucid exposition of this was by Hal Stone an the Voice Dialogue folks at Delos. The Eneagream folks which draw from Sufi traditions, also have a nice take on this.
JL
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
The idea of a single, coherent self is largely an illusion unless one has done a massive amount of work to consolidate that kind of center. Otherwise we´re all driven by a bunch of sub personalities.
You misconstrue what I was suggesting. I was speaking of how consciousness / subjective awareness is likely organized under the hood; something that is not open to 'work' or 'consolidation'. What you are talking about would be more a matter of 'calming' and 'focusing' for a simpler, cleaner illusion.
I'm saying is there likely is no monolithic subjective awareness of any kind, but rather a coherent, self-organizing, standing wavefront of many elements of 'awareness' acting as an integrated [fractal] whole and constantly churning (reorganizing) at a sub-millisecond speed. The coherence and self-organized integration results in the illusion of a monolith subjective awareness.
|
|
jogill
climber
Colorado
|
|
wave of fractal awarelets
Having trouble wrapping my mind around this one. Fractals are very popular right now, like cellular automata a few years ago. Wolfram thought CA explained everything. In the long run fractals may tend to be seen as a little too regular and simplistic. Pretty pictures, though! (and of course, as is frequently the case, I could be wrong!)
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!