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

[david buchanan]

Case:

I was cleaning out my mailbox and nearly threw away your fine relpy to Matt. 
For whatever its worth, reading it was like hearing a really good song. I 
nearly tapped my foot. I'm very impressed.

And mostly I agree with it too.

Makes me wonder what else I've missed in all those unread e-mails.


>From: "Case" <Case at iSpots.com>
>Reply-To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
>Subject: Re: [MD] Mystics, Brains -- Matt has a question
>Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 21:46:34 -0500
>
>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
>
>
>moq_discuss mailing list
>Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>Archives:
>http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/

_________________________________________________________________
Rates near 39yr lows!  $430K Loan for $1,399/mo - Paying Too Much? Calculate 
new payment 
http://www.lowermybills.com/lre/index.jsp?sourceid=lmb-9632-18226&moid=7581