right off the bat angelica, your post appears biased. when you speak of science it is as if in your phrasing the perception is that only a 'few' rely on science for their grounding. when it comes to spirituality you try to give it more credence by coupling it with the word millions. it wouldn't be any stretch of my imagination to think that for millions of people, science was the word on which they rely to 'prove' a whole lot of things.
for me religion and spirituality is as far from verifiable reality as one can get. i can't often explain with much conviction what it is i feel within myself when talking about spirituality. i find it to be a very personal and unique thing. it can't be 'proved' with verifiable facts as science most often can be.
If there are 10 million people with a predominantly science-based view, and 5 million with a predominantly spiritual-based view, there is still major conflict going on.
Whether these models are "verifiable" or not, they are the models of the universe that people hold. Within any general view (science or religion for example), there are major disagreements between individuals.
The conflict remains. People trying to dominate with their view remains. People being infringed upon for having their view remains.
In the end, they are all models of the universe. A model depicts how we perceive something, and yet it is not that thing. How do we judge which is accurate? Can we judge who is accurate and who is not?
I think it's great that we believe in our own view. Is it okay to go further and do what it takes to impose that on others, even when it includes infringment, because we think we are "right"?
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
i don't think there is such a thing. for someone to be winning, someone else has to be losing a little bit. you can't split a cookie by magically creating two. someone is going from a whole cookie to a half.
What do you think of negotiation--wherein if one concedes at all, it's with free choice, and because the one conceding feels it's in their best interest? They make a conscious decision to adapt.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
What do you think of negotiation--wherein if one concedes at all, it's with free choice, and because the one conceding feels it's in their best interest? They make a conscious decision to adapt.
yeah but you've got to convince them it's in their best interest to concede. isn't that kinda what the people pushing their model are trying to do?
yeah but you've got to convince them it's in their best interest to concede. isn't that kinda what the people pushing their model are trying to do?
Do we need to infringe in order to "convince"?
Negotiation might include presenting new evidence that brings about concession.
Negotiation might include (and oftendoes) making an offer of gain to the other side that brings about happy and willing concession.
Imo, there is a big difference between a spirit of cooperation including respect for others in one's dealings, and with infringment. There is a big difference between one party looking for the mutual agreement and that the ultimate interests of both sides to be met as much as possible, than looking out solely for one's own benefits, and to win. Having a spirit of "I'm right, and I expect you to change who you are in order for my needs to be met" is not cooperative and guarantees splits, disagreements, and ongoing conflict.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Negotiation might include presenting new evidence that brings about concession.
Negotiation might include (and oftendoes) making an offer of gain to the other side that brings about happy and willing concession.
Imo, there is a big difference between a spirit of cooperation including respect for others in one's dealings, and with infringment. There is a big difference between one party looking for the mutual agreement and that the ultimate interests of both sides to be met as much as possible, than looking out solely for one's own benefits, and to win. Having a spirit of "I'm right, and I expect you to change who you are in order for my needs to be met" is not cooperative and guarantees splits, disagreements, and ongoing conflict.
sounds to me like you're arguing more about them not playing fair. i think the motivations are the same, some groups just take it to an extreme. as to me personally, maybe i'm a cynic, but i don't see much hope for universal cooperation... eventually someone will see a chance to get theirs at someone else's expense and take it. i'd rather be on that side i guess. which is pretty normal human psych. people are more worried about losing what they have than the cost it might have on future benefits not yet received. ie. most people would rather hold onto their one cookie even if surrendering it means they could probly end up with 2 later.
sounds to me like you're arguing more about them not playing fair. i think the motivations are the same, some groups just take it to an extreme. as to me personally, maybe i'm a cynic, but i don't see much hope for universal cooperation... eventually someone will see a chance to get theirs at someone else's expense and take it. i'd rather be on that side i guess. which is pretty normal human psych. people are more worried about losing what they have than the cost it might have on future benefits not yet received. ie. most people would rather hold onto their one cookie even if surrendering it means they could probly end up with 2 later.
The majority of self-help and human potential books are written for those who seek achievement. And to a large degree have to do with business, since people usually seek their potential in terms of status and money. What has always fascinated me is that these principles are applied in business all the time. And as business becomes more and more global, the need to cooperate with all kinds of varying underlying backgrounds is more and more challenging. And in the pursuit of personal success, people are more than very willing to resolve their own poor communication, or petty ego problems. They are willing to do what it takes in shooting for the moon.
There is always fallout--we're humans and we're learning all the time, from our mistakes. And yet, the very basics of business rely on cooperation, and of willingly negotiating for the greater good of two or more parties. Within this framework, one can continue to "rise" in one's ability to achieve. Through this framework boundaries and differences are being navigated amd risen above with diplomacy all the time. Not only can it be done, but it's constantly happening all around us all the time by those who are acquiring/achieving personal success.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
If there are 10 million people with a predominantly science-based view, and 5 million with a predominantly spiritual-based view, there is still major conflict going on.
Whether these models are "verifiable" or not, they are the models of the universe that people hold. Within any general view (science or religion for example), there are major disagreements between individuals.
The conflict remains. People trying to dominate with their view remains. People being infringed upon for having their view remains.
In the end, they are all models of the universe. A model depicts how we perceive something, and yet it is not that thing. How do we judge which is accurate? Can we judge who is accurate and who is not?
I think it's great that we believe in our own view. Is it okay to go further and do what it takes to impose that on others, even when it includes infringment, because we think we are "right"?
i never said there wasn't conflict.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
The majority of self-help and human potential books are written for those who seek achievement. And to a large degree have to do with business, since people usually seek their potential in terms of status and money. What has always fascinated me is that these principles are applied in business all the time. And as business becomes more and more global, the need to cooperate with all kinds of varying underlying backgrounds is more and more challenging. And in the pursuit of personal success, people are more than very willing to resolve their own poor communication, or petty ego problems. They are willing to do what it takes in shooting for the moon.
There is always fallout--we're humans and we're learning all the time, from our mistakes. And yet, the very basics of business rely on cooperation, and of willingly negotiating for the greater good of two or more parties. Within this framework, one can continue to "rise" in one's ability to achieve. Through this framework boundaries and differences are being navigated amd risen above with diplomacy all the time. Not only can it be done, but it's constantly happening all around us all the time by those who are acquiring/achieving personal success.
Something I just noticed about your take in this thread. There is the element of persecution to what you are stating. Where is the persecution coming from?
Do you "know" that science models are more accurate than, say, spiritual models? And if so, how so?
For example, someone using a metaphysical or spiritual model for their sense of knowing universal truth, might say that the ten commandments are an accurate set of rules stemming from their spiritual model. And they might accurately predict that from past observation having an affair or lying, as are warned against in the ten commandments, will cause suffering. By that same token, one using an ethical model for their view of the universe might see the same thing, minus the tool of "the commandments" to live by.
In science A + B = C in spirituality A + B = F (faith)
Something I just noticed about your take in this thread. There is the element of persecution to what you are stating. Where is the persecution coming from?
You are perceiving an element of persecution towards what from me? Could you be more specific, please?
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
In science A + B = C in spirituality A + B = F (faith)
Yeah, it's pretty clear that matters of our "right brain" functioning, such as holistic perception, image-perception, intuition and future awareness operate with a markedly different criteria than the cause/effect, linear and analytical functions typical of the left brain thought.
That is to say they are different. It is not to say one is superior over the other. Some people have a world-view or model based on a more holistic, image-making perception, while others use a model that is more analytical and logical.
To judge non-linear functions by linear standards shows that the flaw is in the method of judgment-- using a method that is incapable of comprehending that which is being assessed regarding imagery, faith, or other items of a holistic nature. 1+1=2 is a linear form of math, and this type cannot judge an image, for example. We all know the saying "a picture says a thousand words". And image (right-brain function) can convey information that words (linear) cannot entirely describe.
Timothy Leary thought computers were the logical technological extension to human thought. He actually said someting to the effect that to understand computer language and it's intricacies was to be able to understand how the human brain works. Not literally, but for arguments sake, this is often how I read into the way Ahnimus and Angelica express their understanding of how humans think. They express their views differently, however, they are both expressions in fiction. They both aspire to have an understanding of the human condition.
For comparison, in literature, let's take a couple of books... The Catcher in the Rye (which I think is a way over-rated, but not a bad read, nonetheless), and, say... A River Runs Through It. Two books, two expressions in fiction. They both aspire to have an understanding of the human condition.
So, why do you suppose I say that A & A are expressing themselves in fiction? Yet all the while they claim that their science is sound?
At times I use science as the metaphors or for the "models" it provides, in order to communicate a point. These metephors/models are signposts to what goes on, and by no way captures the actuality of what goes on. The same goes for any spiritual definition of reality, or other worldview that is communicated using human thought and words--it's a vague representation of human perception, which to me is quite different than reality itself. It's helpful to keep in mind that to me all communication of these subjects is superficial, whether it is science based, or spiritually based. The map is not the territory. Further than that, the map is immensely different than the terrain of the territory.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
At times I use science as the metaphors or for the "models" it provides, in order to communicate a point. These metephors/models are signposts to what goes on, and by no way captures the actuality of what goes on. The same goes for any spiritual definition of reality, or other worldview that is communicated using human thought and words--it's a vague representation of human perception, which to me is quite different than reality itself. It's helpful to keep in mind that to me all communication of these subjects is superficial, whether it is science based, or spiritually based. The map is not the territory. Further than that, the map is immensely different than the terrain of the territory.
I understand that. I think we all know I am biased, and we know in what direction--that's about where I am and my own model. However this thread is not about me pushing my own model. For me, it's about taking a step back so that we can look at a wider perspective and consider what works and what doesn't, given we all have varying perspectives and sometimes vociferously disagree.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I understand that. I think we all know I am biased, and we know in what direction--that's about where I am and my own model. However this thread is not about me pushing my own model. For me, it's about taking a step back so that we can look at a wider perspective and consider what works and what doesn't, given we all have varying perspectives and sometimes vociferously disagree.
In other words, you're just having a little fun. AMT-style.
Yeah.....er...uh...........fun........yeah, that's what it is.......;)
It's definitely "AMT-style", though, because to some, and certainly to parts of my own self, this is not fun!
We all want to feel like we're part of the world in a beneficial way. It's hard, very hard these days to feel that this is possible.
Finsbury may have some educated historical perspective on that. I don't.
I think the answer is pretty obvious. At every single argument between spiritual truths and scientific truths, science wins.
What is your sample size?
Spiritual: Me.
Science: Well, we cross studied 49 studies each with an average sample of 10,000 people, that would make our sample roughly 500,000 people.
There is just no contest, really. Spiritually held beliefs, like that of the ten commandments, may occasionally be true, they were probably determined by deep thought, but irrationally held truths might be more dangerous than well reasoned errors, it sets the precedent that irrationality is effective and well reasoned errors can be reasoned out.
i don't know... but i don't think either of these two wins... or at least... i might be splitting hairs here but i don't think, speaking in my own point of view, that science and spirituality contradicts each other. but ok... if you want to look at these two as separate then i'll argue that neither wins.
for example, you and me.... when did you win at any arguments pertaining to science and spirituality? when did i win? it's all in guesses.... i guess.
This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
i don't know... but i don't think either of these two wins... or at least... i might be splitting hairs here but i don't think, speaking in my own point of view, that science and spirituality contradicts each other. but ok... if you want to look at these two as separate then i'll argue that neither wins.
for example, you and me.... when did you win at any arguments pertaining to science and spirituality? when did i win? it's all in guesses.... i guess.
I agree. Science and spirituality are different. They are entirely complementary to me.
I also agree, neither one wins.
Again, when someone takes something non-mathematical or non-science-oriented, and expects it to live up to math equations or to science, the problem is in that expectation, itself.
If I expect an apple to live up to the definitions of an orange, it's not the apple that fails--it is the model of expectation that does.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Furthermore, to develop all of our main brain functions and to use them interactively is considered to be healthy, developed and interactive intelligence.
To frown on right-brain types of information processing, such as the instant understanding and perception we experience all the time, with a bias towards left-brain understanding of analysis creates the perceptive imbalance we in North America (as well as many other places on the planet) suffer from. We continue to perpetuate the imbalances our parents and their parents before them taught, even when we have the studies and awareness to show us how faulty and costly such practices are. People continue to perpetuate their limits and lacks all the time, arguing for and defending them.
We can each dramatically develop the types of intelligence that are recognized as highly developed forms of perception and awareness and yet are shunned in our western ways. We do so when we face, acknowledge and weed through our self-fulfilling prophecies of personal bias and limitation. We CAN use the typical "left" and "right" types of awareness together, where they are both valued and utilized, to a greater synergistic effect of the whole-brain, rather than continuing the imbalance of using one or the other at the expense of our potential inner information-processing capacity.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Comments
Whether these models are "verifiable" or not, they are the models of the universe that people hold. Within any general view (science or religion for example), there are major disagreements between individuals.
The conflict remains. People trying to dominate with their view remains. People being infringed upon for having their view remains.
In the end, they are all models of the universe. A model depicts how we perceive something, and yet it is not that thing. How do we judge which is accurate? Can we judge who is accurate and who is not?
I think it's great that we believe in our own view. Is it okay to go further and do what it takes to impose that on others, even when it includes infringment, because we think we are "right"?
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
yeah but you've got to convince them it's in their best interest to concede. isn't that kinda what the people pushing their model are trying to do?
Negotiation might include presenting new evidence that brings about concession.
Negotiation might include (and oftendoes) making an offer of gain to the other side that brings about happy and willing concession.
Imo, there is a big difference between a spirit of cooperation including respect for others in one's dealings, and with infringment. There is a big difference between one party looking for the mutual agreement and that the ultimate interests of both sides to be met as much as possible, than looking out solely for one's own benefits, and to win. Having a spirit of "I'm right, and I expect you to change who you are in order for my needs to be met" is not cooperative and guarantees splits, disagreements, and ongoing conflict.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
"I like to receive respect for my view, so I'm willing to offer you respect for your own, if you are willing to reciprocate."
If a deal is struck, then no one is giving up their view at all.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
sounds to me like you're arguing more about them not playing fair. i think the motivations are the same, some groups just take it to an extreme. as to me personally, maybe i'm a cynic, but i don't see much hope for universal cooperation... eventually someone will see a chance to get theirs at someone else's expense and take it. i'd rather be on that side i guess. which is pretty normal human psych. people are more worried about losing what they have than the cost it might have on future benefits not yet received. ie. most people would rather hold onto their one cookie even if surrendering it means they could probly end up with 2 later.
There is always fallout--we're humans and we're learning all the time, from our mistakes. And yet, the very basics of business rely on cooperation, and of willingly negotiating for the greater good of two or more parties. Within this framework, one can continue to "rise" in one's ability to achieve. Through this framework boundaries and differences are being navigated amd risen above with diplomacy all the time. Not only can it be done, but it's constantly happening all around us all the time by those who are acquiring/achieving personal success.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
i never said there wasn't conflict.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Something I just noticed about your take in this thread. There is the element of persecution to what you are stating. Where is the persecution coming from?
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
In science A + B = C in spirituality A + B = F (faith)
your example might work better like:
science, 1+1=2
faith, 1+1=whatever i believe it does
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
That is to say they are different. It is not to say one is superior over the other. Some people have a world-view or model based on a more holistic, image-making perception, while others use a model that is more analytical and logical.
To judge non-linear functions by linear standards shows that the flaw is in the method of judgment-- using a method that is incapable of comprehending that which is being assessed regarding imagery, faith, or other items of a holistic nature. 1+1=2 is a linear form of math, and this type cannot judge an image, for example. We all know the saying "a picture says a thousand words". And image (right-brain function) can convey information that words (linear) cannot entirely describe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lateralization_of_brain_function
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
For comparison, in literature, let's take a couple of books... The Catcher in the Rye (which I think is a way over-rated, but not a bad read, nonetheless), and, say... A River Runs Through It. Two books, two expressions in fiction. They both aspire to have an understanding of the human condition.
So, why do you suppose I say that A & A are expressing themselves in fiction? Yet all the while they claim that their science is sound?
P.S. I'm bored.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I can't argue with that.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
In other words, you're just having a little fun. AMT-style.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
It's definitely "AMT-style", though, because to some, and certainly to parts of my own self, this is not fun!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
We all want to feel like we're part of the world in a beneficial way. It's hard, very hard these days to feel that this is possible.
Finsbury may have some educated historical perspective on that. I don't.
I do understand what you mean, though.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
for example, you and me.... when did you win at any arguments pertaining to science and spirituality? when did i win? it's all in guesses.... i guess.
I also agree, neither one wins.
Again, when someone takes something non-mathematical or non-science-oriented, and expects it to live up to math equations or to science, the problem is in that expectation, itself.
If I expect an apple to live up to the definitions of an orange, it's not the apple that fails--it is the model of expectation that does.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
To frown on right-brain types of information processing, such as the instant understanding and perception we experience all the time, with a bias towards left-brain understanding of analysis creates the perceptive imbalance we in North America (as well as many other places on the planet) suffer from. We continue to perpetuate the imbalances our parents and their parents before them taught, even when we have the studies and awareness to show us how faulty and costly such practices are. People continue to perpetuate their limits and lacks all the time, arguing for and defending them.
We can each dramatically develop the types of intelligence that are recognized as highly developed forms of perception and awareness and yet are shunned in our western ways. We do so when we face, acknowledge and weed through our self-fulfilling prophecies of personal bias and limitation. We CAN use the typical "left" and "right" types of awareness together, where they are both valued and utilized, to a greater synergistic effect of the whole-brain, rather than continuing the imbalance of using one or the other at the expense of our potential inner information-processing capacity.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!