snatchbalance

WJ,

Not particularly, it's OK to pick things up, look at them, and then put them back down. Some things hold your interest, others don't.

It does take some experience and self awareness to recognise the bullshit. Not that I can make any claim to infallibility.

Would you agree that there is some division between physics and metaphysics? To me, physics is the story we tell each other about the world we live in; metaphysics is the story behind the story, always speculation at best.

SB

[ May 24, 2002: Message edited by: snatchbalance ]

[ May 24, 2002: Message edited by: snatchbalance ]</p>

fwh

SB,

Quote:
--------------------------------------------
It does take some experience and self-
awareness to recognize the bullshit.
--------------------------------------------

I would say it takes a method or peculiar way of relating oneself to the world. With the advent of the Scientific Revolution man began the habit of meticulously observing the facts of nature and systematically interpreting them in terms of cause and effect. This habit has been growing giving us practical knowledge, or knowledge enabling the manipulation of nature. Thus we have amassed knowledge which has given us largely beneficial results in the last 350 years. Certainly a method to eliminate the "bullshit".

fwh

May I add an addendum to my above post.

Let me quickly add that I don't think that the above-mentioned method is the only possible way of interpreting the facts of nature. Its success does not automatically invalidate all other forms of interpreting nature. Positivism as propounded by Auguste Comte in the 19th century has always made feel uneasy. The proposition that only one method of scientific investigation is possible cannot itself (except for devout believers) be based on scientific investigation by that method. Positivism then takes on the character of dogmatic belief, and any dogmatism brings out the sceptic in me. Now,I am afraid, many regard positivism as not only dogma, but as a scientifically established fact.

snatchbalance

FWH,

Agreed.

I would add:

1. Empirical studies have been the most reliable and productive methods produced to date.

2. While not the only methods available for verification, one must take interdiscipline compatability into account, IMHO.

SB

[ May 28, 2002: Message edited by: snatchbalance ]

[ May 28, 2002: Message edited by: snatchbalance ]</p>

WJ

Snatch/Vic!

Well I agree that there ought to be a so-called 'provisional' element to an approach toward 'study'. Of course the stumbling block for most is that folks in fact put all eggs in the objective basket when discussing things like 'the meaning of jesus' or life, etc.. It doesn't work. I think the default 'belief' thread demonstrated 'objective' limitations as such.

How can objectivity be possible in all things? We're talking about the 'meaning' of a some thing. To that end: "Not particularly, it's OK to pick things up, look at them, and then put them back down. Some things hold your interest, others don't."

The central question needs to be explored; what holds one person's particular interest longer than say another person's? Subjectivity? Maybe, maybe not you tell me. Obviously in the subject context, if I hold a 'belief' that life is meaningless, what would compel me to study an objective some thing about that meaning itself?

Curiousity? Uncertaintity about my belief? A need to prove myself right (or wrong)? Why? Why is the 'meaning' of some thing so important anyway if i hold a belief that says there is no meaning?

I think those kinds of fundemental questions ought to be considered when the word 'meaning' rears its ugly head. What or why does curiousity exist? What does (or should) curiousity, in the end, produce?

Any thoughts?

Walrus

snatchbalance

WJ,

I don't know if I can address your points to either of our satifactions; but here goes nothing:

"Well I agree that there ought to be a so-called 'provisional' element to an approach toward 'study'. Of course the stumbling block for most is that folks in fact put all eggs in the objective basket when discussing things like 'the meaning of jesus' or life, etc.. It doesn't work. I think the default 'belief' thread demonstrated 'objective' limitations as such."

Well, yes, many people do look for the OBJECTIVE, like it actually exists. Everything, by my way of thinking, exists on a sort of probability continuum; very, very improbable to very, very probable. One does not have to think like most people.

"How can objectivity be possible in all things? We're talking about the 'meaning' of a some thing. To that end: "Not particularly, it's OK to pick things up, look at them, and then put them back down. Some things hold your interest, others don't."

Being finite, One needs to exercise judgement. For example, Based on a large and complex matrix of antecedents, I have concluded that Xian theology is not worth a further investment of my interest.

"The central question needs to be explored; what holds one person's particular interest longer than say another person's? Subjectivity? Maybe, maybe not you tell me. Obviously in the subject context, if I hold a 'belief' that life is meaningless, what would compel me to study an objective some thing about that meaning itself?"

Do you believe that Life is meaningless? Ultimately, I think, that it may be. But, thank scrod, I'm not looking for absolutes or ultimates.

A very personnal question, why look for ojective "meaning"? What's wrong with the relative?

As far as your "central question" above, We all drag our own background(all the way back), into the question.

"Curiousity? Uncertaintity about my belief? A need to prove myself right (or wrong)? Why? Why is the 'meaning' of some thing so important anyway if i hold a belief that says there is no meaning?"

Certain things, ideas and mind sets lead to a better life than others. Again personnal, do yo need to be "right" or "wrong"?

"I think those kinds of fundemental questions ought to be considered when the word 'meaning' rears its ugly head. What or why does curiousity exist? What does (or should) curiousity, in the end, produce?"

Why curiosity? I guess, for the pat answer, turn to evolution. It's one of the traits of the human animal. It's one of the things that make us what we are.

Why is there such a thing as curiosity at all? Well, why is there something instead of nothing?

Curiosity in humans produces all types of results. I don't know how one can associate "should", with the concept "curiosity".

"Any thoughts?"

What's wrong with adopting a working hypothesis, or several if need be?

SB

[ May 28, 2002: Message edited by: snatchbalance ]</p>

WJ

snatch!

Well I really appreciate at least an attempt to explore some of the so-called fundamental's from human nature. I was similarly disappointed that I could not get an answer to a previous concern over what it 'means' to hold a 'belief'. And yes, I agree, and share your concern about why must there be this preoccupation with objective absolutes viz. justification of a belief.

Alot of folks feel that they need to be right or wrong; either/or syndrome. As you indicated, it seems to be an insoluble problem. But to say the problem exists and to do no thing is tantamont to evading the problem of 'curiousity'. What follows is the continuim you spoke of; searching or enjoying the journey. A kind of means/end debate.

If the purpose of human curiousity is to experience the meaning of life, or the search in the purpose thereof, I agree there are differences between what makes a 'superstar' as apposed to the average person when one applies themselves to a method of 'study'(my interpretion of course). By definition, curiousity can have a dangerous/objective side effect by reducing human interests to an unemotional inquiry? In ethics, one usually performs better when one pursues their passionate interests. So either curiousity kills the cat, or what real purpose does it serve(?).

My point is that it is obviously difficult to remove the subjective from the process of learning and learning well.

Walrus

snatchbalance

WJ,

Idon't think it's possible to seperate our emotions from anything we do, or don't do. They are part and parcel of being human.

You seem to think this is dangerous, why? Because of inherant subjectivity?

Unless I get enthused about something, again on a continuum, nothing is going to happen.

SB

[ May 28, 2002: Message edited by: snatchbalance ]</p>

snatchbalance

WJ,

Find better hunting grounds.

SB

snatchbalance

Wj,

Not insoluable, adopt a working hypothesis and see where it takes you.

SB