[MD] Mystics, Brains -- Matt has a question

[Case]

Matt,

If I missed touching on something, there was a lot to touch on. Feel free to
bring it up again. But I am sure I can count on you for that.

Anyway, after restating my position you took up an argument with Dewey.
Somewhere in between you complained of my enthusiasm for figurative science.
Others have mentioned the poverty of modern metaphors and to all such I say:

If you have trouble seeing scientific metaphors perhaps you should take some
Kleenex to your glasses. Or maybe you need to change them. They obviously
aren't rose colored. Here we are on the information superhighway and you
would have us stranded with inadequate metaphors. Our metaphors are on life
support. Some are DOA. 

And the ones remaining are just spinning their wheels. Its like they've run
out of gas. Wishing they had two lane blacktop, blue skies and a full tank.
The thrill of the open road. Pontiac: Fuel for the Soul. Some just wish they
could do it in a Bentley. 

But No! We turn phrases you have to be a rocket scientist to understand.
They are nerdy metaphors. 

Fictional metaphors? Now those babies are sleek as satin in nylons. Spike
healed symbols wound up tight. Fuel injected jet setters that can stop on a
dime and do figure eights. 

At least the religious metaphors are under lock and key. All that guilt had
me reaching for Valium. All that ritual was like a broken record. But you
change the channel and Elmer Gantry becomes just another test pattern.

These scientific metaphors have such learning curves! But still, the average
guy is smarter that half the people he sees. So with everything gravitating
toward to the lowest common denominator, he has a better than even chance at
Pi in the sky; plus or minus.

If we are to be restricted to figures of speech that relate only to the
products of science, you are right, I am not sure how far we can push them.
They are fine if you want to know exactly when the setting sun will fire the
sky with crimson glory; or if you are staring down a cue stick about to bank
an eight ball. We live and work in rooms that declare the triumph of Euclid.


But if we apply them literally look at the trouble they cause! The vision of
pure mathematics made an idealist out of Plato. It made Newton deny the holy
trinity and declare the unity of God. Einstein could not bear to see it
marred by chance.

In some situations science is irrelevant in some it is not. In fact you can
just about forget about it until your Viagra pill starts working longer than
four hours. All of a sudden it is time to start thinking about hard science.
Situations change hell, mood changes. What constitutes a good time to change
metaphors changes. But like underwear, sooner or later you gotta change
them.  

Art historians and critics can say whatever they want but if they say the
earth is flat they can not expect to be taken seriously. In that sense
science places limits on art history and criticism. When Einstein was
offended by quantum theory it was not his aesthetics that prevailed.

Gladwell's book Blink begins with the example of art historians disputing
the authenticity of a rare Greek statue. Those who relied chiefly on science
declared it original. Others who relied on gut feeling said no. As it turned
out the nay sayers were right. But ultimately the decision was resolved with
more scientific tests.

You said, "Pirsig wants us to think twice before going all buck wild over
physics." Perhaps but that is a far cry from, "Free at last, free at
last..."

Wisdom is knowing when to pay attention to what.

All I have ever said here is the science is my favorite way of thinking
about things. I have mainly argued against is the idea that somehow
mysticism can tag team with science to throw theism out of the ring and
smash it with a folding chair. 

But when explanations of "why" intrude on the "what" and "how" of things,
generally trouble ensues. 

You say much the same thing. "If something under the heading of "mysticism"
attempts to forward an assertion that is meant as a _competitor_ to an
assertion coming out of the heading of "science," then yes, it matters."
I'll buy that. 

But when an epileptic claims, after a seizure, to have experienced profound
insight similar to those of mystics or when madmen claim to speak to God
neurological effects might be good things to consider.
 
Regarding your agreement with Paul Turner to stress, "...stress the
importance of, _we_ do not _have_ static patterns, our minds do not have
metaphors, we _are_ static patterns--our minds _are_ metaphors." Could you
massage that a little and _explain_ what those _ _s mean.

I don't know what your problem with "representation" is but to me it means
our memories and models of the future. These are in a feedback loop with
immediate sense impressions. They are right out there on the cutting edge of
experience. What we see and what we remember is what we are, uh
metaphorically speaking.

I gotta go Nuke diner.

Case