[MD] Food for Thought

[pholden at davtv.com]

Quoting Case <Case at iSpots.com>:

> [Case]
> You feeling confident in the testimony of mystics? You think their testimony
> is reliable? You ascribe validity to their testimony? Do I need to start
> making up new words to ask questions? There is precedent for that here.

Confidence in and ascribing validity to those describing their experiences is
something I generally have and grant unless there is contrary evidence in play
such as with those who have obvious ulterior motives such as car salesmen and
politicians. Basically I'm a trusting soul and have rarely been disappointed.  

> [Case]
> Do you think your individual mystic experience is generalizable to everyone?

I have yet to meet an adult who at one time or another in his life wasn't
completely overwhelmed by the beauty of an object or event. In my book, those
moments are moments of individual mystic experience. 

> [Platt]
> The solitary events of  the creation of the universe, life and your 
> particular birth have plenty of meaning don't you think, like the fact 
> that you are asking about meaning? 
> 
> [Case]
> I trust the experience of physicist over mystic with regard to the solitary
> creation of the universe. That's their job. As for the creation of life
> there is nothing to suggest that it is a one time only event.
> 
> The solitary nature of my birth is and instance of a general process. I am
> and iteration.

Now that's scary. The same can be said of a cockroach. As for the creation
of life, there is nothing to suggest it is anything other than a one time
event. 
 
> [Platt]
> Many science types do, and I haven't seen you accept any truth other 
> than what would pass scientific "tests." But, I could be wrong about 
> the latter. 
> 
> [Case]
> Science types are more likely to declare what isn't true than what is. But
> there are many kinds of truth.

Such as?

> [Platt]
> Slopping thinking? Seems you have some criteria of truth after all. 
> Pray tell, what might they be if not based on assumptions of science?
> 
> [Case]
> That would depend on the question asked. But generally speaking I am looking
> for answers that apply regardless of a particular point of view. That is
> what the assumptions of science are set up to reveal. What goes up, must
> come down was true regardless of what one thought about it until the Voyager
> spacecraft was launched.

I don't think physics ever postulated that what goes up must come down. But, 
what sort of question might be asked that you would not subject to the
assumptions of science to reveal? The ideal mate, perhaps? Or the best 
painting in a gallery?





-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/