Subj : Re: Back again To : JOHN WILSON From : RICHARD M. MEIC Date : Fri Jul 13 2001 09:56 am -> -> ...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 :-) Perhaps it seems vague to you because you attribute too much to the concept of self... as do psychologists. My self is simply my physical being. Do not read more than that in it, or you will miss the point. -> 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. "Being unawake"? What does it mean to be 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. How can it do so? The statement is direct and to the point. -> *Innate* perception? perception: that which has been brought to the attention of, and is understood a certain way by the individual. -> 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 :-) This is obvious. :o) -> -> 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. Bacon's essay is lost to me. I would prefer to read YOUR words on the matter. If I wanted Bacon's words I would look up Bacon... but I am talking to you now, so it is YOUR words that I am interested in. -> 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. There is no longer a struggle for survival with us. Survival is not as big a deal as it once was. There used to be a time when the weak died off and the strong survived. Now the strong take care of the weak. The point is that we have more time on our hands... that time is spend being curious. -> In your view, how objective is *your* `truth'? Very objective, because it has been arrived at logically. -> 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 :-) You still fail to understand the basic meaning of my words. I wonder how I can phrase my statements in a manner that will help you most in understanding my meaning. I will try again, 1. Emotion (the drive to know X), is required in all sentient beings and is required to ask a question ("I wonder why X does this?"). 2. Logic with emotion put aside is required to answer the question ("X does this because of this particular process"). 3. Emotion then takes over after the question is aswered. Emotion is what appreciates the answer and sees the beauty in the answer. Emotion is what is used to apply the answer in a manner that satisfies a need (that need can be primary, secondary etc). Discovery of the real truth is made in #2. -> -> 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". I originally stated "purest". I meant as pure as we can get. But I begin to get suspicous that you knew this already but wanted to pounce on it anyway. ;o) -> 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". Show me where I stated that there was disagreement between them. I recall saying that they separated (whether this is because of disagreement or some other cause is irrelevant). But my point was clear. -> 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. You have loaded the question. My claim was not that I/we know more of what reality is, but that I/we undertand better how reality works. Acquinas had no idea that: - Atoms are made up of electrons, protons and neutrons and that these subatomic particles are made up of small packets of energy called quanta. - The resistence you get when you slap a table is not because 2 solid objects came in contact but because of electromagnetic resistence of atoms. - The universe has structure due to the interactions of the 4 forces of the universe (Strong nuclear, weak nuclear, electromagnetic, gravitation). - The sun converts 650 million tons of hydrogen into helium every second. - That humans share a remarkably similar genetic makeup to the other animals of Earth. - That there are planetary systems around other stars. Need I go on? There is no arrogance involved here. It is a simple fact that we humans today understand more about reality than the humans a century or more ago. -> 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> [...] -> (I would so claim, but modesty forbids... :-) I am going to forget that I initiated this particular part of our argument. -> 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?) As opposed to the emotional fancy of God(s) messing with human affairs. -> -> 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. :-) LOL! Moderate in what? --- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5 * Origin: Try Our Web Based QWK: DOCSPLACE.ORG (1:18/140) .