Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!!

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Rick Julian who wrote (25648)	10/21/1998 12:09:00 PM
From: Jacques Chitte	Read Replies (1) of 108807

>Is "pure" science immune from this same subjectivity? < No. It is not. In the narrow sense there is no "pure" science since it exists only in the human mind and is constrained by our ability to communicate. Science is subordinate to language. In the broader sense science is a humanity - just as much as history or literature. I say this because the core event in any scientific inquiry is a person asking a question, typically a variation on "how/why does this happen?". So the starting point and direction of all our scientific disciplines are fenced and shaped by the power and shape of human imagination. the "geniuses" (Einstein and Newton are salient examples) are those whose imagination could reach past old boundaries. The fence shifters. But to refocus on your question - no. Science is a slave of our subjectivity. The quest is to find modes of expression which are least ambiguous and thus approach "objectivity". Here there is a need for a practical standard vs. the unattainable absolute. Science can be taught using mundane common sense, and its sound hypotheses are expressible and testable within the syntax of common sense. The parts of meditation which are expressible in ordinary language omho comprise the act of leading the horse to water. The object is a drinking horse - and that requires a leap or act (or arguably UNact) by the student. And I further boldly venture that this ineffable personal component introduces so much diversity into the mystical experience (for which the above subjective bridge event is necessary but not sufficient) that any "results" or "conclusions" constitute a signal which does not rise above subjective noise. No matter how awestriking the personal mystical experience may have been. Does this make the mystical experience without value? Emphatically no! I am merely drawing a narrow thesis regarding the interapplicability between people of mystically arrived insight.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next