nigelswift
|
In defence of the Universe!
Sep 25, 2003, 23:42
|
It comes down to this though: open minded and holistic as science may be, it still conceives of boundaries, related to itself, either conceptually or by practical proof.
That is a scientific personal perception, but alternative perceptions can't be assessed by such a measure since it will always invalidate them as being beyond the boundary.
But logic might do it (!). Doesn't it hint that the universe is more likely to be bigger than rationality, not co-extensive with it?
(May I add, I've spent 50 years not agreeing with this, but hell, we all make mistakes!)
|
TomBo
|
sense of self
Sep 25, 2003, 23:51
|
All hail the mighty Ragazoomingmumps, with his camel-drawn Sky Chariot!
You say the moment that the elf became the deity is also "the moment that man became Man. It is the moment that something became more important than *I*". Is the defining quality of being human altruism? Chimps behave altruistically, grooming each other.
"The joyous and unconscious act of erecting a standing stone in response to the jubilation of learning to farm may have been the single specifically inharmonious act which has become known biblically as the Fall. For it was at this moment that humans first peeled themselves away from the Mother Earth just long enough to feel a true Separation. And it was here that the first feelings of 'I' and 'we' exploded in human consciousness."
Interesting that in Clarke's/Kubrick's <i>2001</i> it is the appearance of a monolith (ie. standing stone) that marks the dawn of humanity, albeit one erected by aliens (symbols of the stellar component in our conscienceness?). Interesting also the way that our letter *I* resembles a monolith, and the number *1* (looking after number one, you know).
I'm much more convinced by the argument that we first became truly human when we first established our ego, our sense of self-as-separate-from-the-world, than I am by what you say about altruism. I've read somewhere that trying to communicate with the subconscious mind is like trying to talk to an animal (or a young child). It seems to me that it is ego that makes us human, that distinguishes us from the animals, most of which are driven entirely by instinct (though some, ravens and dolphins for instance, show emerging ego-consciousness). I think I take your point about the birth of the gods, though. If it takes a poet/storyteller/shaman to make a god then that would have to have happened after we became human (again, by this I mean different to an animal) - animals aren't poets. Perhaps the gods were born at the same moment as the stones were raised? The gods appeared with their temples?
I wonder when language was invented...
I guess that the cult of the human dead fits in with this, too. So many monuments are funerary - perhaps we only started to pay these respects to the dead after we began to think of us as a *we*, an *I*.
|
TomBo
|
|
|
that quote's from the modern antiquarian - forgot to source it
|
morfe
|
Re: In defence of science
Sep 26, 2003, 00:03
|
Steve, I think maybe you've got me wrong (it's not diffficult!)
I actually love scientific enquiry,and my point about science 'becoming' nature was a positive point, and we share the same 'anti-closed mind' sentiments I think. Science is an incredible creative process, not just there to 'explain away', 'cos labelling things can negate them, and forget that we are in a cosmic flux at grass roots, and the participatory role of experiment and observation is a process that causes change also. Something reductionist science and especially biologists has/have largely failed to address.
In short I'm for discovering more, not less, but I can't honestly see how far science can expect to go if it doesn't begin to apply Goethean-strength observation regarding cause and effect, and the most important of any consideration, before application, is to ask "then what?" at least 20 times.
I feel the urgent need for quantitive, analytical science to work with the science of wholeness (as per Goethe) both being true, and both being non-comprehensive on their own. In adopting this approach we can come to know and understand more inclusively. The whole not being the sum of it's parts etc.
The will to power is the essence of nihilism, someone once said. It's true!
|
morfe
|
Re: sense of self
Sep 26, 2003, 00:12
|
"I guess that the cult of the human dead fits in with this, too. So many monuments are funerary - perhaps we only started to pay these respects to the dead after we began to think of us as a *we*, an *I*."
Right on! But you know what? I'm not convinced that it's only humans that have a sense of identity, I've seen some pretty louche cats that have a kind of swagger that gets the back up of the other moggies ;-)
Ah, territory, is the cry! But to define a territory, one first has to be aware of needing to. Isn't that a primitive ego? As everything in life evolves, i cannot for the life of me imagine a 'point' in history when all of a sudden someone was born and said "I am!" It doesn't fit, I'm sure the ego-self develops and changes just the same as everything else. SLOWLY!
|
FourWinds
|
Re: sense of self
Sep 26, 2003, 05:43
|
"I'm sure the ego-self develops and changes just the same as everything else. SLOWLY!"
Do you think they wandered around going "I might be" and then ""You know what? I really might be!" and then "Shit! I am!!!" ? :-)
|
FourWinds
|
Re: sense of self
Sep 26, 2003, 05:46
|
I think 'we' was around a long time before 'I'. Animals have a great sense of 'we'.
It's not the birth of altruism, but the end of it that marks the start of 'Man'. No?
|
FourWinds
|
Re: In defence of science
Sep 26, 2003, 05:58
|
I think I should leave all the speaking from 'this side' to Mr. Gray, because he says it much better than I could (but it's sooooooo tempting to get my two penneth in :-)
You have both said something which hits home with me. There are extreme scientists and extreme non-scientists (the New Agers I usually bash all the time), but they aren't the only ones.
What you have to remember about scientific advancement is that it comes from observation and speculation. Scientists have to come with some pretty far fetched theories sometimes before finding the reasons behind something.
|
TomBo
|
Re: sense of self
Sep 26, 2003, 06:17
|
|
Agreed. The birth of *I* wasn't necessarily the end of *we*, though, more like another layer of consciousness overlaid upon *we* (?). Do you think *we* was always around then - I tend to think it was.
|
nigelswift
|
Re: sense of self
Sep 26, 2003, 07:12
|
Just as the foetus mirrors evolutionary trends, so the psychological growth of an infant may mirror some of the mindset changes of our early ancestors n'est pas?
This piece of intelligence is uncorroborated but I thought I'd release it anyway.
|
