Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 3 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 481
Member
Offline
Member

Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 481
Hi HF;

This post seems to deal with alot of duelism and for one, I think that getting pigeon holed into thinking in scientific terms or spiritual terms is very limiting.
It is best to have it all in your toolbox.

We as human beings are not Angels and we are not Demons. We can travel to Heaven or Hell and then go home at the end of the day.

Having been called out to make a repair to something broken and been treated like I was responsible for their problem and the Prince of Darkness all in one, I knew I was in Heaven. Who else would treat me like that except some misguided Angel.

Having helped someone broken down on the side of the road and being gushed all over with compliments and mushy stuff, who else but a demon would think I was such a Prince of Light.

I think what gets me the most on all this scientific debate is all the uncertainty that is put forward with it. "Well we really don't know",
"We're working on it", "What the bleep do we know".

We can't make a decision, we don't do anything except chatter like monkeys, please keep sending money! Support the national endowment fund for Educated Idiots.

JD

Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 327
Member
Offline
Member

Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 327
"Real knowledge is to know the extent of ones ignorance."

- Confucious

Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 481
Member
Offline
Member

Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 481
Confucious ol buddy; you are correct although very incomplete. It's not just knowing how stupid you may be at the moment. A wiseman then follows through and learns what he does not know.

Taking a complete inventory of ones ignorance will only produce you having the belief that you are truely ignorant. Look at all the proof!

Having said the above regarding Angels, Demons and chattering monkeys.

When you get the right mix of these human beings working together, under the right direction and nobody it taking things personally, you can produce some pretty beautiful music.

I think HT called it Emergence.

Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 327
Member
Offline
Member

Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 327
Dear Jeff,

I think the meta-message behind what Confucius said is that there are two
kinds of ignorance: 1) the ignorance which we are NOT aware of (unknown
ignorance), and 2) the ignorance which we ARE aware of (known ignorance).

Knowing what we do not know is the first step to real knowledge.

Best,

HF

Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 481
Member
Offline
Member

Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 481
Aloha HF;

There are volumes and volumes of knowledge we do not know, it makes great dust collectors. Not likely to be used until such a time it is rediscovered and needed for some practical use. The original documentation will probably not be used at all.

I try to be more pratical with the unknown. If it is useful practical knowledge then it falls into the realm of "living knowledge" unlike the volumes of books that sit in a graveyard waiting to be discovered once again. Maybe never because they had no value for the living.

I think you are correct in the process of discovering what we do not know but this has to have some application to life or it is of little use and will be forgotten.

Then there is the follow through to figure out how to use this new knowledge and assimilating it into ones life. Then boiling it down to some principle that has many applications in many places.

To discover things we do not know just for that purpose is similiar to the martial arts phrase "movement for the sake of movement" is a waste of time.

Confucious opens a door but does not take you to the other side.

Jeff

Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 327
Member
Offline
Member

Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 327
Dear Jeff,

To separate knowledge into "useful" vs. "un-useful" appears to fall into
the habit of dichotomizing things, which arises from a spirit of duality,
which you apparently objected to in a previous posting. Of course,
there's nothing wrong with dichotomization per se ... it is a
categorizational skill which helps us to organize our thoughts. It only
becomes dangerous when we start to place values upon one category vs. the
other, that is, when we start to judge.

Many "useful" things have been serendipitously gained from the study of
what many would consider "un-useful" fields of knowledge. I can name
dozens of examples, not the least of which are the origins of the laser,
Velcro, penicillin, super-glue, and indeed, even the very Internet with
which we hold our valuable communication owes its origin in an extremely
"un-useful" field of science. But practicality is not the reason why we
study. We study because we are alive and curious about the universe, just
as a child draws a picture for her own delight. That is reason enough.

Yes, I agree there are certainly many volumes collecting dust on
bookshelves, but I would also suggest that what are contained in those
volumes are all precious and useful in their own right, for they are all
part of our experience and universe. Who am I to judge whether a movement
is a waste of time? The universe has graciously offered us an abundance
of time and space to move as much as we want, and it rejoices as all of
its glorious details is unveiled in wonderment. Perhaps a bit of
hard-gained knowledge fades away and has to be rediscovered an infinite
number of times, just as endless generations of children draw their little
stick-figures with crayons and are never appreciated in museum displays.
But the momentary delight which the discoverer of that knowledge
experiences is no less than the momentary delight of the young artist when
she creates her personal masterpiece, and such delight is enough for both.
And the universe agrees. And that is enough.

Perhaps the beginning of wisdom is realizing that there is as much joy and
pleasure in an "un-useful" bit of knowledge as there is in a "useful" one.

Best,

HF

Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 481
Member
Offline
Member

Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 481
Aloha HF:

Please enjoy your bliss. Which you need no knowledge, useful or unuseful, to do.

It seems you take a neutral position now to accept everything as it is, yet before you were wearing the hat of a Scientific Researcher.

When you "wear a hat" then you should wear it to the best of your ability, in my humble opinion. Although there are no hard and fast rules.

Personally I have a great time filling the trash can with unuseful information and parts that have been labeled "used but good". I believe that I am passing to another man a treasure that is trash to me and making room for more beneficial energy to enter the space I occupy (a Feng Shui thing).

I wish you well but your line of reasoning does not work for me.

Jeff

Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 327
Member
Offline
Member

Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 327
Dear Jeff,

Hmm ... I'm a bit confused ... it would help if you would explain why you
think I'm not wearing my "Scientific Researcher" hat well.

The scientific endeavor can be broadly categorized into two branches:
1) Basic research, and 2) Applied research.

It appeared that your previous posts were attacking Basic research as
"un-useful," because this kind of research is conducted for the sake of
research alone, with no practical objective besides gaining knowledge in
mind. I was defending the value of Basic research in my last post along
two fronts:

1) I tried to explain that sometimes, very useful things arise from Basic
research, even though there was no explicit practical intention during the
pursuit of this knowledge. In addition to the examples of very useful
things which arose from Basic research which I gave above, I should also
mention electricity. In the early years of electricity, it was a subject
of purely Basic research. Electricity was just a curiosity, and
scientists wanted to study it only for the sake of studying it.

Indeed, when Chancellor Gladstone asked Michael Faraday, "But, after all,
what use is it?", Faraday replied, "I do not know, Sir, but you will
probably tax it someday."

And when Prime Minister Peel asked of a discovery concerning electrical
effects, "What good is it?", Faraday replied, "What good is a new-born baby?"

2) My other point was that even if no practical application comes out of
Basic research, your original attitude that pursuing knowledge for the
sake of knowledge is a waste of time is highly judgmental. Who is to
judge something is useful or not? Is a work of art or music useful? Is a
sunset or a meteor useful? Is someone dying of cancer or suffering
from Down's Syndrome useful? History is filled with those who have used
this kind of attitude to justify horrendous actions.

The universe is abundantly rich in all its forms, and it does not care
whether something is useful or not. The scientist who conducts Basic
research studies the universe just because it is there, not because she
wants to convert it into something that will serve her. There's nothing
wrong with the utilitarian approach of the Applied researcher, but there's
certainly nothing wasteful about the efforts of the Basic researcher.
Indeed, an objective consideration of the universe quickly convinces you
that if researchers were proportioned according to the kinds of phenomena
in the universe, then there would be vastly more Basic researchers than
Applied ones.

So, you said you rejected this line of reasoning, that it did not work for
you. It would be nice to know why, so that I may try to clarify.

Best,

HF

Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 481
Member
Offline
Member

Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 481
Morning HF;

My observation is that you are introducing the attitude or feeling towards what the Universe has to offer rather than useful or unuseful knowledge.

You can be Happy towards everything in life, it sometimes takes a little work getting there but can be attained.

Regarding knowledge and research. I tend to believe that the mind will also follow the rules of thermodynamics in processing information, where as a machine runs it is also breaking down and at some point will have to be rebuilt or replaced. Not the mind but the system it uses.

When you are researching you come across much info, that when verified is found not to work or apply to the research at hand. Maybe you make a note of it for further work later or toss it out all together. If you try to hold to all of this and not "let go" it's like the sewage lines backing up.

I like the toss out method better because if it had any value, it will surely resurface again. If you have a good memory this isn't much of a problem or loss.

It was said that Tesla could build a machine in his mind, start it up, then return in a couple of weeks and see how things were running.

Don't get me wrong. I do love to get lost in a large library filled with dusty old books and see where the spirit takes me and stay there for days. It is a great treasure to have access to.

To go to the book store here and see all these books from all religions, mystics, scientists, self help, etc, etc, etc. and feel a connection to all these authors in the same place. What a great thing. But this is as a person just relaxing with a coffee in one hand and the greatest story ever told in the other.

To leave and wear ones hat to me is also training. It is getting focused, yet relaxed. It has been said to me that the symbol of the sword is what represents the intellect or knowledge in the subconscious, and so I find training with the sword applicable to what I am doing in life. I am no great swordsman but it teaches me much.

To add some scientific uncertainty here. Maybe your scientific research is not about what is "out there" but what is internal.

I hope that gives you some clarity.

Jeff

Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 103
Member
Offline
Member

Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 103
Just wanted to say that this seems to have been a really interesting thread. I have never found science so fascinating! Particularly the complexity of cause/effect models - from more rigidly determinist on the one hand to probabilistic on the other. Does this imply intelligent design or merely the existence of some other causal variable currently unknown? Does this imply order or chaos?
Does this mean life has a purpose or is completely random?
It's interesting too how the debate here has moved from concepts of reality to ways of approaching/exploring that reality. Do I wear a hat of specific purpose or do I take the hat off and explore with no fixed direction or objective? Do I acquire knowledge or develop awareness? Is knowledge about substance or relationships?
Very interesting questions...
best wishes
Ingrid

Page 3 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Moderated by  Wendy_Greer 

Link Copied to Clipboard
©, Learning Strategies Corporation, All Rights Reserved
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5
(Release build 20201027)
Responsive Width:

PHP: 5.6.40 Page Time: 0.141s Queries: 34 (0.020s) Memory: 3.2545 MB (Peak: 3.6000 MB) Data Comp: Off Server Time: 2024-06-16 03:48:46 UTC
Valid HTML 5 and Valid CSS