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

Re: [sl] Re: Rationality and the Sacred

Expand Messages
  • Daniel N. Washburn
    Hi, Chris - Thanks for the good words, Chris. And wasn t Mike eloquent in his praise of Science and Deborah in her Socratic reflections! Yes, I think we are
    Message 1 of 3 , Oct 12, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi, Chris -

      Thanks for the good words, Chris. And wasn't Mike eloquent in his
      praise of Science and Deborah in her Socratic reflections! Yes, I think
      we are entering in through the gates of poetry.

      By the way, thanks for sending me the link to issue two of subrosa
      magazine. For any of you list folks who might want to take a look:

      http://www.subrosa.dailygrail.com/

      Dan

      Chris wrote:

      >Nice post, Dan.
      >
      >I have been gearing up to write something similar over the past while. I think you treated it
      >very eloquently. My main point to add is that demanding that our opinions adhere to peer-
      >reviewed scientific opinion, strictly speaking, means we shall not advance. A good essay
      >to read in this regard is T.S. Eliot's "Tradition and the Individual Talent."
      >
      >Briefly, "peer-review" is only a euphemism for consensus reality and, in the face of the
      >poet, that has never meant much. Indeed, so much of science has been wrong in the past
      >we would be foolish to think that much of it is not still erroneous today.
      >
      >A junior once demanded that the freshman provide citations for every argument he put
      >forth. The senior looked on discouraged at the advance and retreat, parry and blow of
      >argument upon argument. "Pity they don't realize that to argue from citation is only to
      >argue from memory and to never use their brain at all. It would be better if computers
      >were discoursing rather than men."
      >
      >So, yes, I would agree that we are at the gates of poetry in the face of the sacred and the
      >profane. Scientifically, what of it. Poetically, on the other hand...aye, there's the rub.
      >
      >Cubically,
      >
      >-/me out
      >
      >
      >--- In sacredlandscapelist@yahoogroups.com, "Daniel N. Washburn" <danw@n...> wrote:
      >
      >
      >>What are we up to on this list, asside from having a good time talking
      >>about topics that interest us?
      >>
      >>I think of it more as art appreciation than as a scientific search for
      >>the truth. For example, there is much that can be said about
      >>Beethoven's Emperor Concerto, but ultimately the reason we talk about
      >>it is the overwhelming feeling of the music. If you were deaf, you
      >>might still talk about the music, relying on scores, Beethoven
      >>biography, rhythm patterns, etc. but you would not really 'know' about
      >>the music. There is an irrational core of human feeling at its center.
      >>Likewise with sacred art , architecture, and landscape. We are dealing
      >>with a core set of irrational human feelings--awe, wonder, beauty,
      >>reverence, holiness, ennoblement, upliftment, illumination, unity, sense
      >>of meaning, sense of the sacred.
      >>
      >>We want to know how these feelings relate to mathematics, science and
      >>cosmology, human history and its search for meaning, the on-going
      >>creation of sacred art, architecture and society.
      >>
      >>So our search is for a science of sacred feeling, a history of sacred
      >>feeling, and an art of sacred feeling.
      >>
      >>How much of the sacred is out there and how much is in here, is a
      >>question for discussion. Are we dealing with psychology or physics or a
      >>ratio of the two?
      >>
      >>The rules of clarity, evidence, and logic apply during out talks, but
      >>since the basic core of our discussion deals with human feelings, we
      >>cannot leave them aside or rule them out. When I look at Milan
      >>Cathedral and feel my breath taken away, I know its sacred art.
      >>
      >>Question: Is all beauty holy?
      >>
      >>By its very nature science wants to be objective, removing all feeling
      >>from its judgements. It also wants to measure quantities rather than
      >>experience qualities. Therefore, in dealing with the art of the sacred
      >>we need to be very wary of scientific reductionism. Its not in my
      >>objective, quantifiiable universe, therefore it doesn't exists. In my
      >>days as a psychology grad student, psych was split this way between the
      >>behaviorists and the psycholanalysts. The behaviorists were
      >>over-scientific and the psychoanalysts were under-scientific. Both of
      >>them were off target, though. In my humble opinion, with human beings
      >>it all comes down to art, not science.
      >>
      >>Question: Can you have a science of creativity?
      >>
      >>Dan
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >Topics suitable for discussion in this e-list can be found at:
      >http://www.luckymojo.com/sacredland.html
      >
      >To UNsubscribe, send email to:
      >sacredlandscapelist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      >
      >Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.