Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [existlist] scientific?

Expand Messages
  • Aija Veldre Beldavs
    ... there is a one and only one way to live a happy life? i saw the offer of a basic principle, not the offer of a TOE. science isn t a sufficient or only
    Message 1 of 5 , May 30, 2007
      Trinidad Cruz wrote:
      > 6) In hard-science, like bio-chemistry with which I am familiar, you
      > will readily be cast as an idiot if you think you have a TOE. So be
      > it. C J is an idiot, a member of a small group of chaos theory
      > psychologists who want to tell us all how to live the happy life.
      there is a one and only one way to live a happy life?
      i saw the offer of a basic principle, not the offer of a TOE. science
      isn't a sufficient or only answer, but sciences, such as neurology and
      astronomy, are providing insights at a rate, quality, and quantity that
      are hard to match by other current fields. wonder, curiosity, and
      delight are ongoing in architecture (buildings, the net) where art and
      engineering are in dialogue. or if one is into xtreme sports - free
      running as a form of interacting with the environment requiring an
      understanding of topography and practical geometry. these create on
      some unconscious and collective level a view/ philosophy of life apart
      from verbal hair-splitting, but can be integrated with it.

      from my religious friends i'm more likely to get the "nothing new under
      the sun" basic principle of life, which isn't terribly inspiring if one
      considers the horrible historical human record and the unstable state it
      is in now. being able to come up with really surprising discoveries on
      the micro or macro level is in itself uplifting, hopeful, inspiring even
      if one is not that hopeful about the human condition.

      in science and technology people are more clearly evaluated by their
      ability to solve relevant problems, suggest new pathways, but in many
      other knowledge areas since the rules and language are not well
      defined, it is often too easy to fall back on one's own individual
      political views as evaluating criteria of another. i had a humanities
      teacher that shattered hope and illusions that being a member of several
      "minorities" (in her case religious, sexual) gives one automatic special
      insights into tolerance or empathy of the not usual to her circle. for
      her "translating" lived different experiences into the language she was
      using actually involved conversion to her specific way of looking at the
      world, not just demonstrating that the language and the masters of the
      field were understood. this was true even when hard data was offered to
      support that experiences different from hers shouldn't be dismissed as
      individual anomaly or fantasy. instead of being curious to check it
      out, she felt threatened and angry. such experiences drive home that the
      capacity for tolerance and curiosity for that which is strange can
      strongly differ apart from one's own experience of intolerance to
      oneself. some are predisposed than others to be more open to
      "supertranslation," going up a level or so to see where the match or
      connection might be.

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.