Subj : Re: Back again To : Richard M. Meic From : John Wilson Date : Thu Jul 12 2001 11:23 am -=> RICHARD M. MEIC wrote to JOHN WILSON <=- -> ...but the point here is we must agree upon definitions else -> communication is mere static... RMM> I do not mean self in any metaphysical sense. My self is my RMM> biological being (which includes my thoughts, feeling etc). That Is pretty metaphysical. And VERY vague. Especially when roles are assigned to 'em :-) I have come to realize that the words "I", self, ego, and those consonant are vastly misunderstod, following misdirections by psychaitry, assumptions, lack of directed inquiry, and in a cosmic sense being unawake. -> awe is the result of -> RMM> beauty/ugliness percieved by the individual. That bounces the inquiry one step back but dosn't come close to the source of the inquiry. *Innate* perception? The want for truth -> RMM> is perhaps triggered by beauty or awe but the seeking of it is -> RMM> impared by the emotion. -> You say impared. I say enhanced. My experience differs, evidently mightily from yours :-) -> The "want" for truth? Want? Truth? RMM> What is it that you do not understand? The want (I suppose that is a desire for it, to understand that huge abstraction) follows a loong search before it received an acceptable definition. Bacon's essay comes damn close. And far higher in man's value-list is: Water, food, shelter, sex, safety...THEN perhaps, outside the cave, next to a roaring fire with a full belly, abstractions could then well flourish. In your view, how objective is *your* `truth'? RMM> My point was to be that emotion has no place in the persiut of RMM> truth. Emotion is a part of us, I do not argue that nor do I wish RMM> to remove that. The truth you pursue is one I totaly reject. As I do food without spice, sex without involvment, music without melody. Talk to a Nobel prise wsinner about his *passionate* pursuit...the emotions he shows as he talks about his work. Passionate entheusiam! And nothing worthwhile is ever dome without entheusiasm :-) ---Ralph Waldo Emerson. My point is simply RMM> that whenever emotion played a role in the search for answers we RMM> ended up with a very distorted answer that did not depict RMM> reality. Contra above. -> Logic in it's purest form? What on earth is that? RMM> Pure logic. -> Aristotleian? Boolian? Cantorian? Logic is man-made. :-) RMM> Yes... and? And is hardly, therefore, "pure". -> RMM> In the past 100 years man has seen more accumulation of knowledge -> RMM> than the rest of human history. -> -> ok. -> -> The end of the Enlightenment -> RMM> marks the separation of emotion and logic. -> -> Nonsense. RMM> The end of the Enlightenment marks the separation of religion RMM> (there's that word) and science. The beginings of science marks a slow, and sometimes painful change in the relationship of religion and the world. (As viewed by science) There is a sense of course where divisions (But not separation: they are both human processes) are necessary: Value, worth... are simply not the provinance of science. Science generally, dosn't mess with this. Now if religion would only stick to *it's* area and stop trying to keep old ways of looking at the world...there would disappear this silly idea that the two are "In disagreement". Apples and oranges...both fruit... Before then little progress in RMM> knowledge of reality had been made (when compared with the last RMM> 100 years or so). You tell me how much closer you are to knowing what reality is than, say, Thomas Acquinas. There is anthrpomorphic arrogance in science, and logic as in all else human. So I suggest that it is best for emotion and RMM> logic to be separated when searching for the truth of something. At your peril and great loss. But from what I've read there is litte real danger of this :-) Scientism? or Logophilia? Hang in there... RMM> RMM> Oh... it seems that I have forgotten that you are one of the few RMM> people on Earth that is able to keep religion from taking over RMM> every aspect of your being. Say what? I appologize. You are making no sense. I made a strawman RMM> agrgument with the statement in question. I'm not following you. Show some context, please, next time. Hmm. I seem to have won a point or received some sarcasm...mebbie both? Howsomeever... I think it would almost be fairer to say that I am one of the few people on Earth that would like to have religion take over every aspect of my being. (I would so claim, but modesty forbids... :-) RMM> I am saying that the disparagement of emotion in the search to RMM> understand how reality really works is benneficial. (How reality really works?) -> remember not, nor am interested really in such...is there a moderator -> currently? RMM> I thought you were it. I do not know now. Never ever been a moderator. Moderate, though. :-) Cheers! .... Caution: Some readers may experience drowsiness. --- Maximus 3.01 * Origin: The BandMaster, Vancouver, B.C., Canada (1:153/7715) .