[MD] Reductionism

[MarshaV]

Hi Ron,

Just want you to know that I am agreeing with many of your comments 
into the science/mystical inquiry.


Marsha





At 10:25 AM 7/6/2009, you wrote:
>[Krimel]
>Scientists do not discount "point of view" they merely attempt to make it
>insignificant
>
>Ron:
>And THAT is a problem, a huge one. For point of view is all we ever have.
>to reduce it to insignificance is buring our head in the sand in preference of
>a type certainty. When the value of point of view is realized for 
>what it is, primary,
>it throws out a kind of universal certainty, one we have grown accustomed to
>as a security blanket, reducing certainty to a consensus of educated guesses,
>verifyable in their context.
>Which is the best we can hope for. Therefore it would be imperitive 
>as a scientist
>to understand this and pursue a beginners mind in relation to it.
>
>Myticism questions certainty, it reduces what we think we know to a collection
>of assumptions about experience. I would think every "good" scientist would
>recognize the value of understanding this.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>________________________________
>From: X Acto <xacto at rocketmail.com>
>To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>Sent: Monday, July 6, 2009 9:53:02 AM
>Subject: Re: [MD] Reductionism
>
>Ron prev:
>The focus on science is also purely emotional. It simply values a different
>set of criteria. The focus is on value, for that is what mysticism and
>science hold in common even though science is reluctant to admit it.
>Scientists are mystics.
>
>[Krimel]
>The point I have been making is that emotions are our sense of Value.
>Rationalizations and logic are not sufficient to generate commitment. What
>distinguishes scientists and mystics is first methodology and second
>standards of verification. Scientists much submit their views to collective
>agreement. Mystic live in their own little worlds.
>
>Ron:
>So you are saying that since science is a shared culturally subjective view,
>it is more verifyable and there fore more reliable or more "truth" full.
>within it's own cultural context, sure. But the same may be applied 
>to mysticism
>if the expereinces of the mystic are shared and verified by others 
>in their culture
>it too is "true" in the same cultural context.
>
>Idunno, I think it is simply a matter of preffering one little world 
>over another.
>
>
>[Krimel]
>Scientists do not discount "point of view" they merely attempt to make it
>insignificant, so that the Law of Gravity does not depend at all on one's
>point of view. IT works whether you believe in it or not. Mystics at least
>as Dave seems to paint them, depend only on the contents of their own self
>reflection. They achieve this by pretending that nothing else exists.
>
>Ron:
>The law of Gravity is a mathematical formula, it "works" if one 
>understands and
>  believes in mathematics. The phenomena may be understood in a variety of
>ways, it may be measured in a variety of ways.
>This seems to be the crux of the arguement, are we argueing YOUR conception
>of mysticism or Daves?
>Mystics, as I know the term, seek to rid themselves of a priori 
>conceptions about
>experience, which is what you say science is after.
>I think your preconcieved notions and prejudices regarding the term tend
>to allow you to paint them as rationalists simply because they use 
>self reflection
>to arrive at the nuetralizing of a priori concepts.
>
>[Krimel]
>Meaning is the value of the desire to reduce uncertainty. This is a basic
>almost biological urge in humans. Percepts and concepts are not the same
>thing. We build conceptual static patterns out of the dynamic flux of our
>percetions.
>
>Ron:
>And we build static perceptions out of conceptual static patterns. The loop
>is constantly in mix with raw sense data, raw sense percept data is 
>meaningless
>without concept in the context of experienceing as a human being 
>living in a society. Percepts and concepts are a distinction made in 
>regard to one
>expereince. To reduce past one experience in the context of a human being
>living in a society is venturing into concept. We may "deduce" from expereince
>that percept is logically primary and this would in all probability 
>be a likely
>"truth" of the matter. But thats exactly what it is. A deduction.
>
>[Krimel]
>That is the case Ken Wilber makes. I think it is completely bogus. It is
>just the claim that truth is solely dependant on the community of believers.
>It the kind of reasoning that makes sense of Scientology and comet cults.
>
>Ron:
>In fact it does makes sense of them, it explains them and it should serve
>as a powerful reminder of this fact. When we start to defend our beliefs
>as though they are concrete universal objective realities, then we 
>should take a step back and take a long hard look with this concept in mind.
>
>Truth is not solely dependant on a community of believers it must correspond
>with expereince, how that expereince is interpreted dictates the truth value.
>That interpretation is a shared conceptual framework dependant on a community.
>
>I think the "interpretation" of "truth" IS dependant on the 
>community of believers,
>you appealed to this in the validity of scientific verification, 
>unless you are saying
>that objectivism is valid and "true" and a god's eye view in fact IS 
>attainable at least in method.
>Free of any cultual influence. Which is what you seem to be implying.
>
>
>
>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/
>
>
>
>
>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/




"Compassion diminishes fright about your own pain and increases inner 
strength." ~His Holiness, the Dalai Lama