| Current mood: |  contemplative |
| Current music: | "For You" Staind |
"Your insults and your curses make me feel like I'm not a person"
This following paragraph is from the introduction of The Encyclopedia Of The Unsolved; Past and Present (which I just found while moving out of my dorm a few weeks ago and began reading it, 600 pages long)
..........
It is not simply a question of whether ESP or telepathy deserve to be taken seriously, but wether - as Martin Gardner would like to believe - the universe is ultimately as rational and "normal" as a novel by Jane Austin or Anthony Trollope. This is an easy belief to maintain because the universe that confronts us when we open our eyes in the morning looks perfectly "normal" and it is unlikely that we shall encounter any event during the day that contradicts this assumption. But then the universe looks unquestionable to a cow for the same kind of reason.We know that the minuet we begin to use our intelligence to ask questions the universe becomes a far more strange and mysterious place.
Most scientists would agree wholeheartedly with this sentiment for science begins with a sense of mystery. But a certain type of scientist - and they are, unfortunately, in the majority - would also like to believe that the mysteries could be solved by the simple kind of deductive logic employed by Sherlock Holmes. And the problem presented by these time slips or precognitions or synchronicities or by poltergeists and out-of-body-experiances make it clear that this is wishful thinking. We can only keep science within comfortable logical bounderies by refusing to acknowledge the existance of anything outside those bounderies.
..........
Interesting thought.
In laymans terms it basically says that we generally see the world one way because we've never HAD to see it any other way in our day to day lives. We wake up to the same world we've always known. It starts to become questionable and alien when we begin inquiring in to what is unseen and abnormal (esp, ghosts, aliens, etc) things outside of our day to day lives make us begin to question our lives as they are.
The problem with science and the "paranormal" comes in because science has always had a way of rationalizing things and putting them in certain categories and anything outside of the preset bounderies is not worth a second thought.
I judge my beliefs on intuition and experiance. Not science, not religion, not one book or many books. I'm old fashioned that way. My beliefs and spirituality comes from waking up every day, seeing the world as I see it and interpreting that in my own way without outside aid from religious dogma or scientific dogma.
Maybe that's a "less educated" path but it's definately more enlightened in my opinion.
It's not like I put no emphasis on science or philisophy etc because obviously science DOES hold many answers but somehow I don't think the meaning of life is in a lab or a science book.
*nod*
/fin
(Post a new comment)
 |  On the other hand ...
 givzerhead
2004-05-27 07:03
(link) |
Gentle Grasshopper:
To a *real* scientist, the beauty of it all is using science to see the universe, or a part of it, in a way that is unexpected or that was never thought to exist. The more one understands about the sciences, the more weird and unwieldy the universe becomes.
What many take as a fundamental truth of science is really only a model that someone thought up, that was "confirmed" by others, and then became generally accepted a "true." The King is clothed? I confirm. OK, it must be true.
Those who like to wave scientific models around and terrify the villagers with those models, as well as the terrified villagers, remind me of the kids who chased the others around with a model roach, or who were chased. At first, I thought it was all a game. I wondered, How could anyone believe that the model was a real bug? It wasn't a game and somehow the model took on the significance of reality. Look around, it happens all the time.
The people who adhere the most rigidly to models of science are precisely those who are unable to think out of the box, away from the bounds of the model. A pedant in a lab coat is still a pedant, not a scientist ... (How whacked must someone be if they have to pretend to be a scientist, in order to feel cool, eh?)
Arguably, I know a lot about the physical sciences. I racked up around 250 semester credits in that domain. I even did stuff for pay for a "few" years. Yet, my view of life isn't much different from yours.
I pretty much shitcanned organized religion as a source of anything but hatred and bloodletting. But, I see scientific dogma as being OK for a starting point. As you move away from that point, all bets are off, Cookie. Once you believe the dogma is an absolute, you awake to find dogma-sh*t on your mental shoe.
Science helps me understand how much sugar to put in my homemade nectar and when to make the mixtures in different strengths to adapt for nesting, hatchlings, high heat, migration. It helps me figure out when to stop to adjust the air in my tires when I go up to the rockies. It helps me figure out how to get blood stains out of various fabrics. It also helps me turn a sweet woman's come-hither smile from a sweet woman into the dragonlady's YO-BAYBEE roar. Science is my friend.
Ghosts may exist. I haven't seen them, but they may be there. To be honest, though, they must be keeping their manifestations to themselves. That would be odd, considering how I nearly pioneered getting fucking obliterated in graveyards. Maybe they were pissed because I got laid on this mound or shook my snake on that one.
At the same time, I put electrons in the "may exist" category, too, even though there are a number of suggestive manifestations of those little boogers. Note that I haven't seen electrons. No one has. They just happen to be a bit less discreet than ghosts. So their presence is suspected, like the other woman when the new lipstick appears.
I'll have to vote for electrons' existence, though, because I've made beaucoup more money on the backs of the oppressed electrons than I have with any ghost. But, in the end, it doesn't matter whether ghosts or electrons exist.
So long as you can wake up and draw a breath, you are already on the right path for the day. To have some wonderful person look you in the eyes and kiss you, represents all the reality you need to have in your world. The models, bugs, electrons, and ghosts can do their thing, if they exist or not if they don't. I guess I don't get caught up in the nitpicking insanity that people try to foist this stuff on us. The King is naked! Ahhh, who gives a f*ck!
You're cool, NK, no matter how you view the world.(Reply to this) (Thread) |
| Re: On the other hand ...
givzerhead
2004-05-27 20:28
(link) |
To be honest, I can't remember what perspective I held at 20. However, I've *always* perceived the universe as it is -- infinite in all regards. "Infinity is..." a phrase I like to ponder, as I watch the sun set behind Catalina Island, from my perch on a hill overlooking the Pacific. I never finish the sentence because, by doing so, I limit what infinity is.
Oh, sure, there may be bounds, perhaps, on this collection of things or that. Those bounds may not always be what they seem. In the overall, there are infinite varieties of infinite varieties.
We do agree quite a bit, even if our expressions vary: restricting one's view to a "right" and a "wrong" limits one's ability to perceive "other" solutions.
If there are four ways to get something done, each with a cost (money, effort, time, sacrifice), choosing which is "right," and which is "wrong" is irrelevant.
What you end up seeking, then, is the Pareto Optimum, or the choice of alternatives, which brings the benefit you desire, without creating more harm than the other alternatives. "The best choice, all things considered."
The herd believes that there is only one "right" solution to a given problem. In fact, life is full of polycentric problems: the outcome, or solution, intimately depends upon the starting point. A different starting point leads to a different outcome.
One starting point can be different from another due to a host of factors, e.g., time, players, resources, etc. There can never be a single, "right" solution, or outcome.
Even where the concept of a "solution" doesn't fit, the Pareto Optimum concept is still valid. In a range of views on a topic, we tend feel most comfortable with the those that most resonate with us at the time, yet avoids more distress than the others may cause.
Add polycentrism to Pareto Optimality and, voila!, welcome to real life.
Mainstream thought became a "Zero-sum" game in the early '90's: I'm right, you're wrong; I win, you lose; I'm black, your white; I'm a hero, you're a pariah; I'm politically-correct, you're a bigot; I'm entitled, you're "sh*t-out-of-luck."
There is an entire generation now in their 20's, who only know how to function in a zero-sum way.
They see the herd, and know that either you are in the herd or you are not. The herd goes left or right. If they go left, they cannot go right. If they go right, they cannot go left. If they choose another path, or one that meanders, they are condemned by both left and right sub-herds and the wannabees.
This is a problem for all of us. Most are stuck on the path of their parents, and their parents-parents. If it's not done their way, it isn't right. So, other ways must be wrong.
The fundamental problem is that fewer people want to think. It is a sign of pure intellectual dwarfism to adopt a zero-sum approach to anything, whether it be in diet, politics, religion, or sex.
The herd demands that you join this camp or that. I'd rather be kicking up my heels far away from either, having a great time by enjoying the splendor of infinity.
One more thing. The digital world is an illusion. Transistors are analog devices, not digital. They operate as digital devices because extreme operating points are defined, and they are driven to the extremes. Someone who designs digital devices had better be aware of the analog universe in which their digital model functions. Otherwise, they'll have a smoking, molten lump in front of them.
Your beautiful mind, dear Lady, sees the world as it is -- full of color and variations. You are alive, your wisdom grows every day. To me, your external form isn't a deciding factor in your desirability. Your physical exterior is what I call your "bag of skin."
Your bag of skin may endow you with certain attributes and limitations, but it is your mind that sets YOU off from the other bags of skin.
You've got a great package, bay-bee!
P.S. I'm flattered that you want to use my thought. Please do. That's why I share them. Not bad for 4AM at the end of a long day, eh? (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread) |
(Post a new comment)
|
