Hey Matt --

A subject close to my heart

You know me... in some ways I have been *the* science nerd around here for years.  But I, too, have developed some pretty serious qualms with the entire idea of the scientific method.  The reason for this is simple, in a way:  the world we live in, from the ecology outside our backdoor, to the functioning of sub-atomic particles, to our own bodies health to... well, you get the picture... all of these things are complex.  What I mean by complex is non-linear, interactive, and probablistic (as opposed to determinative).  And how does science try to explain these phenomena and systems? By reducing them to thier component parts.  Its like trying to comprehend banana bread by studying bananas, walnuts and flour.  Its a very limited and limiting view.

Now, on the other side, you generally won't find a culture that believes that the seasons are caused by the emotions of jaguar.  I know -- it was just a made up example, but this is still important.  The beliefs of primitive groups are *very much* based upon thier sensual experience of the world.  And they experience the world much more intimately than we civilized folk have ever done.  As a result, even though thier beliefs, ideas, understanding of the world is couched in very mythological terms, oftentimes, the underlying assumptions of how the world works are far more perspicacious than we give credit.

My most frequent example is this:  when Einstein came up with his theory of space-time, it was revolutionary.  Turned the scientific world on end.  The idea that time and space were of a part rather than distinct things completely changed the way we civilized perceive the world. (Granted... most people still don't understand it, but it is working its way into civilized consciousness.)  By contrast, I suspect if someone that really undestood went to a primitive culture and expounded in depth, the reaction he would get would be something like "yeah... so?" Because intuitively they already know. (and as much as he would hate it, I'm entirely certain that Einstein was working off of intuition when he came up with it.  That's why it took so long for him to work out the math.)

Now... to address sciences role in destroying the world... of course.  Civilization tries to control all aspects of the world.  It does so by simplifying the world down to something manageable -- ie, monoculture cultivation, strict hierarchies, externalizing everything that it cannot deal with.... so of course, science is very much a part of that same mindset.  It is effective enough to have assisted civ in these goals at unprecedented levels.  But it breaks down at the same point that civ, does.  Because increasingly complicated = increasingly fragile.  Whereas increasingly complex = increasingly resilient. (Jason and I argue about this because Anthropology defines cultural complexity as sum total of artifacts.  I'm not talking about anything quantitative, however, but rather qualitative.  Not nodes but relationships)

So anyway....... this is where I stand on science.  The things it has learned are potentially useful, potentially damning -- but at the end of the day, the limitations it imposes impede understanding more than it inspires.  Try and tell that to scientist, tho

Janene

I was watching the history channel the other day about Charles Darwin and I hadn't realized what he did was so simple yet so amazing.

Western/Christian civilization up until Darwin's writings had always assumed species were still exactly the way they were the day God created them.

A simple idea like 'species change' spawned entire schools of though and ways of thinking, by simply looking at the natural world and conferring that with widely-held beliefs.

Many of my 'widely-held' beliefs are disconfirmed by simple observation of nature. 

I think people often use the convenience of knowledge being spoon-fed to them without realizing everything from advanced chemistry, cooking, thermodynamics, and principles of theater can all be observed in nature.

Given time and intention, these natural observations can lead to leaps and bounds in theater theory or chemistry or in my case environmental restoration even today.

The other side of knowledge that is frustrating about schooling and science is that it doesn't have to come FROM them.

Information FLOWS THROUGH everything. Books aren't special, they don't contain more facts than puddles of mud or gusts of wind. Learning may make great shorthand, but experiential learning is what led to an Newton's observations in the apple orchard. 

So it is a belief, nay, superstition, that book learning, science, and the like create or sustain or monopolize information in any way. It's quaint and cute and future generations will come to respect our attempts and failures to grasp information like we respect stonehenge.

I guarantee everyone is this virtual room could go out, and with intention and openess to the the oneness and infinite nature of everything, could come back and tell us something no human has spoken of before.

Maybe the story is told that the seasons are regulated as the jaguars emotions change, but it's more likely the jaguar moods are based on the current weather conditions. My point is, even if people swear to a literal meaning, it's literalness maybe more important to the cohesion of Jaguar tribe culture, but is still interpreted. Certainly, it's more useful to pay attention to Jaguars to forecast weather than it is to pay attention to the weather to forecast Jaguar. And so maybe it's possible to ignore people's allegiance to literal meaning and simply ask is it useful? 

It's not a mistake of the people to swear to literal meaning of a figurative truth. It is the mistake of the observer to take them so literally and remove the context and important that literal meaning brings to the importance of that cultural task.

If the tribe believe it was figurative, then perhaps that practice would die out.

So often, we imbue truth in things because it's functionality gives it it's truth.

But, given my molecular state is relative, given my place in space-time is incalculable in an ever-spinning galaxy, why focus on truth?

Because it is a mistake of the observer, obsessed with right and wrong and with being right, consumed with looking good or avoiding looking bad. 

When you observe with your own personal relativity in mind, you an FLOW through information, rather than suffer to become it's source or fountainhead.

Because the truth is trillions of neutrons flow through you right now from all corners of the universe, connecting to ever single piece of information is available. But as it moves through you, you move through it. 

But certain beliefs disregard this amazing fact and instead continue to create automatons obsessed with becoming a or THE SOURCE of that flow.

It's cute, it's quaint. But even ignoring the scientists plea to take them literally, you can see them in all their beautiful fuzziness: given access to the flow of everything flowing through each of us, only those who must LIVE FOREVER take on the ultimate concept -- being the source of the flow of the universe.

The Christian/Western doctrine accepts nothing less. They all strive towards being on top of the pyramid, the source of all, and yet even the largest pyramid builder can hardly be considered the source of much of anything beyond good investment advice.

When you give up the promise of everlasting life (and what else lives forever other than the universe itself?) and re-enter the FLOW, that's when the real good stuff starts to happen. In the FLOW, everyone get's a shot.

In the fight to be the SOURCE there are declared winners and losers but in the end of the day everyone's position in the universe is still relative, no matter how tall your pyramid is or which star's 93 million year old light you are lined up to. 

The Big Bang is Science's God.

That simple sort of creative explosion, or a set-point to call the beginning (time's creation)....  As far as I can tell, the only difference between God the Father, and Big Bang is personality, or human characteristic.

It's kind of like both religions have slowly been melding together.... though appearing to be trying to keep themselves as separate as possible.... whatta joke.  Plus needs Minus, because they are one.

They are both based on a past beginning point that no one has ever witnessed - not even Jehova's Witnesses. 

To calculate the Big Bang, we would have to be able to calculate ourselves calculating ourselves calculating ourselves calculating ourselves....................  But our brains already do that..... because HERE WE ARE MUTHR FUCKRS!!!

Hey all,

This excerpt out of Jensen's Welcome to the Machine might be worth taking a look at. I like how Aronowitz lays out the mythology behind science. 

take care,

Curt