--WebTV-Mail-60579276-4454 Content-Type: Text/Plain; Charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: Quoted-Printable
First of all, I am not in the habit of collecting unreasonable ideas. That of course has not alway been the case. The weakness that you portray of science is it's ultimate strength.
Intuition has nothing to do with logic. Intuition comes from a part of our brains that can communicate in ways other than conceptualization and ideation. I dont dismiss intuition at all as a source but it is NOT what one does Reason with. Reason can assess the information that the intuitive senses transmit and incorporate it in the general picture. We can have ill feelings and doubt when we are not paying attention to our intuitive senses and only=A0logic.
Who says the structure of reality can't be tested. If one takes just a small peek at the research in particle physics, astronomy, and the latest cosmology you would not think that. Things like Relativity are counter-intuitive. It is hard to understand with anything but MATH!!!
Examples can be found! Simple Newtonian Gravity works. When Einstein got a hold of it, mass bent and warped space, but a ball still fell at the same rate! Now Relativity breaks down at the atomic level. We have entered the world of Quantum Physics. But they are ALL still right.
No, I don't need myth. I am the hero, the villain, the god, the devil, the winner, the loser, the lover, the hater; the friend, the whole story.
As I said, science is only the information and knowledge derived from constant interaction with physical reality. What we do with it is up to us. It is just another tool, not an end. Philosophy arises from our summation of what we "realize".
Metaphor should be recognised as just that. It is a crystalization that has meaning, no more, no less. Myths reflect our substance, not thereverse. It is simple literary sense and has no mystic strings attached.
--WebTV-Mail-60579276-4454 Content-Disposition: Inline Content-Type: Message/RFC822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Received: from mailsorter-102-2.iap.bryant.webtv.net (188.8.131.52) by postoffice-151.iap.bryant.webtv.net; Thu, 6 May 1999 19:00:33 -0700 (PDT)
mailsorter-102-2.iap.bryant.webtv.net (8.8.8/ms.graham.14Aug97) with ESMTP id TAA02811; Thu, 6 May 1999 19:00:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by maxwell.kumo.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id TAA10749 for virus-outgoing; Thu, 6 May 1999 19:42:56 -0600From: "Richard Aynesworthy" <email@example.com> Subject: Re: virus: Religious Memes
> Sounds a bit bombastic!
> Science NEEDS reason to function.
...right - science is a construct of reason, but that's also a limitation on the data it can gather. Reason is only one component of the humyn data-gathering and sorting apparatus. Exclusive reliance on reason and the discard of intuition, rationality (which includes emotion and instinct)
The scientific method is simple
> rationale. One tests hypotheses with experiment.
...but the structure of reality can't necessarily be encompassed by testable hypotheses. Especially since our sensoria is limited by the intrinsic boundaries of our information-gathering apparatus. Linguistic structures - based as they are on symbolic representations of experiential factors - also play their part in shaping those aspects of reality which are open to examination. The reliance of science on transmissible (and reproducible) results makes assumptions about the nature of the universe which do not necessarily have anything to do with the nature they propose to investigate.
> experiments duplicate the results, certain possibilities are
> eliminated and others remain. These are then tested again and
> again and again in multiple fashion in order to rule out bias.
> There is progression in science.
...care to cite an example? (bearing in mind that CHANGE and PROGRESSION are different things)
> As far as myth is concerned, they all have a "moral to the story", a
> kernal of human nature within. But we don't need myth.
...don't we? What then gives meaning to life? Myth encodes the intuition that our experience is comprehensible. That's the feeling that gave impetus to the scientific initiative in the first place.
"It was only with a recognition of the metaphoric dimension of myth and religion that they would be seen, not as ultimate reality, but as fingers pointing to an ineffable mystery; not as final truth, but its verisimilitude, the multicoloured refraction of the clear white lightwhich may never be looked upon directly." - Joseph Campbell
> from us. It is not the other way around.
...the structure of myth came from us, true - we gave it shape in our individual cultures and paradigms. But the SUBSTANCE of mith - its content is that from which we sprang.
We should look at all
> the forces behind organized superstitions. Myth should be in
> folklore books not the basis for humanity's worldview.
...like the organised superstition of scientific rationality?
...personally, twenty thousand odd years of transmitted humyn experience sounds like a better foundation for a worldview than a feww odd hundred years of a system designed to propagate a particular variety of hierarchy.