[MD] tiny skull... change... nothingness...

[PhaedrusWolff at carolina.rr.com]

Ham -- Providing facts is what Science is all about, and a scientific 
theory should never be published unless it is supported by facts. I 
didn't study economics and am not acquainted with EMT or Fama/French. 
However, economic theories are usually based on historical data 
(cycles, etc.) which are borne out by facts and common sense. The late 
Milton Friedman of the University of Chicago was an eminent economist 
whose books make common sense out of inflation, the free market, and 
taxation policies. The point of my previous post was that, unlike 
Science, Philosophy doesn't offer factual knowledge. Philosophical 
research can only be done on what other philosophers have said. They 
can't "test the results" and build the kind of data base on them that 
Science does. 

Chin -- So why you would believe scientific theory is above 
philosophic theory would be because of these so called facts? You 
would not believe it is possible, much less common practice to use the 
data which more supports your theory? -- especially if your theory is 
going to make you look brilliant and famous? 

The thing about scientific fact is it is as you say derived from 
scientific data, which is manipulated, plus there is no reason to 
believe the next set of data will look anything like that of the past. 
The idea here is that the more data you have, the more factual your 
scientific fact. If the field of finance is any indication of what 
this data can tell you, you could look at 100 years of data, but then 
split this data up into 25 year segments, and neither the total data 
or the segments would agree with each other. 

Ham -- I don't know what you mean by "imitative poetry". Certainly you 
have to draw your own conclusions, since you'll get a variety of 
conflicting opinions. Plato was not really "opposed to" Aristotle, but 
Aristotle took his ideas in a different direction by trying to 
determine the "true essences" of universal things. I don't use Essence 
in the plural, since for me there is only one Essence which manifests 
itself in the appearance of the many. 

Chin -- Aristotle took an extreme turn in direction, for instance, 
Aristotle thought there was no need to look at Horseness, as the 
actual horse standing right there in front of you was all you needed 
for knowledge. Plato’s philosophy could be considered religious, while 
Aristotle could be considered scientific. -- see imitative poetry 
below. 

Ham -- Again, you'll have to explain the meaning of this term to me 
[imitative poetry]. Did you mean to say "poetic license"? I don't see 
any particular connection of poetry to philosophy. Philosophy 
encompasses the empirical world as well as whatever ultimate reality 
the author proposes. But it's not empirical evidence; the literature 
of Philosophy consists of theories and hypotheses about the universe, 
its creation, its morality, its values, and man's role in existence. 

Chin -- Imitative poetry would be that which you get by going through 
school, or church for that matter. As you go through the different 
subjects, teachers and professors, and build your knowledge through 
education you take in the assumptions of the teachers and professors. 

You would not get very far in school constantly arguing with the 
teachers and professors. Your grades depend on your ability to imitate 
Teach. As Pirsig put it, (not an exact quote), if you take Teach’s 
words, turn them around to sound like your own, you get an A. If you 
offer independent and critical thinking in your essay, you might get 
an A, but then again, you might get an F. 

Independent and critical thinking in Sunday School will get you kicked 
out. (my statement, not Pirsig’s) 

Actual poetry may be better than science and better than philosophy as 
it could be the DQ at the head of the train;
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the conditions that surround 
him... The unreasonable man adapts surrounding conditions to 
himself... All progress depends on the unreasonable man." -- George 
Bernard Shaw

Ham -- Gurdjieff was a pseudo-scientist of the New Age tradition. His 
theories of multi-dimensional universes (other realities) have no 
scientific support. Wayne Dryer is more of a motivator and "self-
development" proponent than a philosopher. Bill Moyers would probably 
be a better source for comparing mysticism, religion, and philosophy. 
I would also recommend "The History of Philosophy" by Will and Arial 
Durant. 

Chin -- I was using Gudjieff as an example comparing it to Pirsig’s 
SQ/DQ, and it would seem to me both have as much “scientific support” 
as gravity. The New Age Tradition would fit will with Pirsig’s 
philosophy, as his was also viewed as New Age at the time of ZMM. 
Though I personally am not impressed with Wayne Dryer, it is his 
blending of East/West I was using as an example. It seems he has taken 
Depak Chopra’s Eastern teachings and given them a Western tilt. And, 
whether it is or not “Philosophy” per se, I guess would be as 
philosophy is defined. If you take Philosophy and put it out there as 
an unconnected train of thought, and claim there is no thought that 
goes into science, such as a hypothesis that doesn’t come from prior 
data, this might be your belief. I still draw the conclusion 
Philosophy is the parent of Scientific and Religious thinking, 
and "The History of Philosophy" would be a good example of 
Philosophology. 

Ham -- So Pirsig and his followers claim. [Aristotle] Classification 
is an important part of scientific research -- particularly in the 
biological sciences. And the Periodic Table (of the elements and their 
valences) is an example of classification used in Physics and 
Chemistry.

Chin -- So you agree it is SOM? My thinking would be that the Periodic 
Table is a tool, not knowledge of physics and chemistry. Is it useful? 
Is Aristotle’s Slice-n-Dice useful? Yes. But, it is not what creates 
new knowledge, only an explanation of how things are. New knowledge 
must come from somewhere besides what is already known. My point, 
evolution must come from intuition. New data does present itself, but 
new data alone? No. 

[Chin]: > The apple falling was enough data to discover gravity > 
without intuition? And Einstein found data that > confirmed the 
bending of space and time without > thinking of it first? 

Ham -- Certainly not. Where have I said anything like that? It sounds 
more like Pirsig's idea of Science. 

Chin -- I’ll point you back to what you said;
>[Ham] -- By the time of Newton and certainly Einstein, Intuition 
meant deductive >reasoning from empirical evidence. Microscopes, 
telescopes, precision scales, advanced >mathematics, and the 
classification of biological phyla and species were necessary to 
>establish the discipline of Scientific methodology. 

Chin -- Maybe I can continue the questioning on this -- Einstein 
looked up though his telescope and saw time and space bending? Did he 
not have the hypothesis built before the did the experiments and data? 

> You have scientific data pointing toward Essence? 
Ham -- No. As I said before, scientific evidence cannot be expected to 
support philosophical theories. 

And a little further down;
> Sorry, I typed the wrong word. Let’s rephrase it -- 
> ‘Existentialism’ would be pure Objectivism? I’ll read > ahead where 
you are explaining this later. It’s a bit late, > and I may be under 
the afflence of inkahol. 
Ham -- Yes, you make much more sense when you're sober. 

Chin -- It doesn’t make any more sense to me sober. If Essence is 
derived from Existentialism, and Existentialism is pure Objectivism, 
and Essence is your scientific view of Everything, but scientific 
evidence cannot be expected to support Essence, I think I might be 
better off drunk. ;o)

Ham -- Do you think laws are made to be broken, Chin? Or that morality 
is what you can get away with? I don't see the point of these 
questions. The fact that crooks and thieves break laws doesn't mean 
that laws serve no purpose. 

Chin -- Presidents and Priests break laws. The point is, morality 
cannot be forced from without. Morality can only be found within. Laws 
and religion may help society, which is a good thing, don’t get me 
wrong, but laws and religion do not create moral man. Man must be 
moral or laws and religion are inadequate. 

Ham -- Yes, philosophers have the benefits of those who preceded them. 
But, as I stated above, Philosophy doesn't provide a culmulative data 
base in the way that Science does. 

Chin -- I’ve already answered the data thing. Let’s just take away her 
dating privileges and be done with it. 

Ham -- Do you mean "equating" Nothingness with nothing? Why shouldn't 
I? They mean the same thing. 

Chin -- I have also already pointed toward Ancient Zen and the 
difference between Nothingness and Nothingness Theory, and explained 
it was the Nothingness of Ancient Zen I was pointing to as relating to 
Quality. 

And we come to my explanation which was in the next paragraph;
> The contraction and expansion of what has always > been there, no 
beginning or end, no large or small, > might be as close to 
Nothingness as I could explain it. > The Zen Masters didn’t explain 
it, but used it for a hint > to find truth. Per their style, a hint is 
all you are offered > -- never empirical truth -- never dogma. 

Ham -- If that is sufficient for you, run with it. I prefer to delve 
into the "hints" and come up with some basic principles that can 
unravel the mystery. 

Chin -- Then you would make a good student of Buddhism. 

You’re still having fun aren’t you?

Chin