Click here to support the Daily Grail for as little as $US1 per month on Patreon

News Briefs 15-01-2008

By Gregon

Jameske’s out till next week, so you’re stuck with me…

Quote of the Day:

There is a danger for science in encouraging self-appointed protectors who engage in polemical campaigns that distort and misrepresent serious research efforts. Such campaigns are not only counterproductive, they threaten to corrupt the spirit and function of science and raise doubts about its credibility. The distorted history, logical contradictions, and factual omissions exhibited in the arguments of the critics represent neither scholarly criticism nor skepticism, but rather counteradvocacy masquerading as skepticism. True skepticism involves the suspension of belief, not disbelief.

Charles Honorton

Greg
Editor
Greg is the owner-editor of The Daily Grail, as well as the author of a number of books including Stop Worrying, There Probably is an Afterlife.
Related

29 Comments

    1. Suspension of belief rather than disbelief
      He is quite right on this.

      Belief is the golden cage of ignorance. It is inversely proportional to the ability to face reality.

      Gives an idea how much humanity is ready to face reality too.

      So, imagine the day the experiment is over and the curtains are pulled, what will happen.

        1. Really
          Hello Anonymous,

          Sure, but not in a mode that you would call a belief.

          It really seems that suspension of belief is the utmost challenge for the intellect.
          On the other hand, I suggest that from the moment belief is suspended, things are seen from a very different light.
          It is a very interesting principle since all thought systems, be they materialist or philosophical or mystical and so on, all of them proceed from belief.

          If not, no one could adhere to any thought system and all would be the center of their consciousness. Now, culture and collective systems are the center to which the individual seeks to belong, they are the center around which the individual gravitates, stripping him of a real identity.

          But I disgress, since you were only jesting.

          1. Yep. ?
            [quote=Richard]Hello Anonymous,
            But I disgress, since you were only jesting.[/quote]

            Yes, of course I was jesting. Well, I was if you believe I was.

  2. The suspension of belief
    Peter Kingsley goes even further, suggesting the issue comes down to a misinterpretation of rationality itself . . .

    “Nowadays we like to think of rationality as completely distinct from mysticism, of science as something utterly separate from the knowledge of another reality. But that’s
    just an optical illusion. Really there can only be one kind of knowledge. And rationality is simply mysticism misunderstood . . . the categories of irrationality and non-rationality are simply constructs of our rationality. You could say that rationalism requires a critical or skeptical attitude. The trouble is that I have never met a skeptic who is prepared to be radically skeptical about his skepticism.”

    http://www.peterkingsley.org/home.cfm

    1. There you go.
      Rationalism, the way the ego interprets his reality based on subjective knowledge, feeds thought systems that are then adopted by the masses.

      Even knowledge gets in the way ultimately because it is loaded with values and those values are emotional in nature.

      It is only in the absence of value that knowledge may be real. Not absence of value in the sense that it is worth nothing but absence of psychological value supported by personalized emotional currents.

      1. Axiomatic Us
        Let’s not go overboard on Honorton’s quote. Whilst I accept its validity, isn’t he speaking, in particular, from an annoyance concerning non-acceptance of paranormal abilities? This is perhaps a separate issue to science in general.
        On saying this, I’m only offering motive, here. This does not mean his statement is not valid. When I think of Al Gore, it seems very valid indeed.
        As most commenters will know, I accept a high probability of man-made global warming (no, that isn’t an invitation for another AGW debate), but I’m sick of political opportunists using a scientific concept to reguvenate their career. You’d have thought he would be satisfied by ‘inventing’ the internet all by himself.
        But what is wrong with our ‘rational’ scientific outlook which holds so much scepticism? Well, first of all, a touch of scepticism is vital. It is the gatekeeper against belief. But as with anything, too much of it can be very bad for you.
        And I think it can thrive by looking at logic. Okay, I know it isn’t exactly ‘reason’, but the simple fact is, philosopher after philosopher has tried to find a foundation of concrete behind logic, and they have all failed. For the simple fact is, all logic begins with an axiom, or self-evident truth.
        Well, in being self-evident, it is beyond rational enquiry. It merely is, because we conceive it as ‘is’. But sadly, this is not much removed from belief itself. Rationalists thus become mystics with another funny hat.

        …

        Reality, like time, is relative to the observer

        Anthony North

        1. Opportunism
          I agree that they may have been an agenda or another behind the words Anthony. Therefore I strip the agenda and recuperate the words to examine a concept.

          You are right though, generally, if not always, a personality will use the words to support his side of the medal, not realizing that a principle is universal and not personal and therefore applies to the other side of that medal as well.

          I also agree that philosophy is dead, it had its chance but it remained within the realm of rationalization, unfortunately. Philosophy was perhaps the single domain that could have touched outside of the apparent limitations of the mind but it eventually was recuperated within those limits and ended up staying there. Now it is too late for philosophy and something else has to emerge.

          1. Philosophy
            I wouldn’t go as far as saying philosophy is dead, Richard. Just dormant.

            …

            Reality, like time, is relative to the observer

            Anthony North

          2. Dormant philosophy
            Lets say its dormant then.

            But to wake it up, it will have to be from a platform that is not that of the philosophy of devolution, but rather one that is based on a vision that is really willing to go beyond the known.

          3. Beyond the known?
            Beyond the known is belief, not philosophy.

            …

            I’m fanatical about moderation

            Anthony North

          4. Beyond the known
            What I meant by beyond the known was beyond knowledge, beyond what we think we know based on memory.

            What we believe we know is what I call the known in this instance.

            Philosophy tries to bring what lies beyond knowledge within the grasp of knowledge, and contain it. It is where what could be really known become instead some sterile knowledge that is fixed in time, while reality is a perpetual movement.

            Belief is always tied to memory, therefore to ‘human knowledge’ in that sense. Knowing cannot be brought under the laws of memory while human intellectual analysis is totally based on memory.

            That is where I situate a major flaw in philosophy.

      2. emotional
        since we are emotional driven beings, everything we do,say or write will have some form of emotion attached to it. Be hard to filter it away. Where is “Spok” when you need him?

        “Life can be whatever you want it to be, as long as you do what your told.”
        LRF.

        1. half-hearted attempts
          Sure we have emotions. Without emotions we would not try anything.

          And it is true that we cannot achieve pure reason, we are not perfect in any sense. We cannot be purely emotional either.

          But the mystics and emotionalists who say we should give up on reason, and just go with feelings and emotions carry this too far.

          For example, reason tells us that we cannot go faster than the speed of light. Then mystics say, therefore there is no reason to get out of bed and try to walk at 2 kilometers an hour.

          So I say the pure mystic point of view is much sillier than trying to find some reason. If that insults the feelings of some mystics – well that’s too bad. The able-bodied mystics still go to the bathroom, not being worried about perfect light speed.

          —-
          If we don’t succeed, we run the risk of failure.

          (Bill Clinton, and perhaps others)

          1. Mystic v Rationalist
            Good morning everyone,
            Who speaks more sense, the mystic or the rationalist? I’d say both and neither – dependent upon the degree to which we accept the particular system.
            First of all, it is right to say that emotion is at the heart of everything we do. But it is also at the heart of everything we are – which is a physical expression of our knowledge. For at its heart, all knowledge is defined by our emotional outlook.
            This does, of course, eat into our view of the rationalist. Indeed, much emotion supports the rational stance. For instance, Earthling says reason says we can’t go faster than light. This is an incorrect statement. Our present knowledge says we can’t go faster than light. Earthling has placed an emotional bias towards rationalism in missing this point.
            But on saying that, the mystic offers little more than belief, so yes, rationalism seems to win the day regarding knowledge. But when looking at the major paradigm shifts in our knowledge, so often it was the inspirational, the irrational, that propelled us on to create a reasoned paradigm.
            So the mystic and the rationalist are, perhaps, both wrong, if we rely totally on one side or the other. The sensible system is to accept a bit of both, the one forcing knowledge on in bounds, and the other putting on the brakes and saying: hold on, lets rationalise that.

            …

            I’m fanatical about moderation

            Anthony North

          2. Mystic v Rationalist
            I agree with Anthony.

            Truly enlightened mystics/Teachers have ultimately taught followers to find the middle road – the spot that lies somewhere between the wild swings of the pendulum. Any position that is a total extreme – mystic v. rationalist, fanatic v. atheist, etc. – is likely to be distorted to a degree. Truth tends to be found somewhere in between.

            But thanks to those brave individuals who refuse to limit their thinking by what is currently known – they are the ones who stretch the envelope and lead the way to major breakthroughs and the evolution of new and greater paradigms.

          3. Reason and emotions
            Aren’t emotions the values used by reason to interpret the environment?

            So whether we have a mystic or a rationalist or whatever who uses values to comparatively interpret the world we end up with a view that is tailored to the value but nothing that simply is an acknowledgment.

            This is the only problem.

            If both mystics and rationalists could put no value into their observation, instead of fighting for their interpretation to prevail, they would learn from each other and create a new synthesis for a greater reason.

            Reality has no value other than those afforded by memory and emotions are the energy of memory which in turn are values. Reality has no limit while memory is a limit.
            Using memory to apprehend infinity is the same basic principle that both the mystic and the rationalist use. The emotion of the memory is simply of another order.

          4. Rational Mysticism
            My interpretation of Kingsley’s suggestion is that pure reason, if someone can actually get there, will ultimately lead to mystical experience.

            As Anthony North mentioned in his first post, the perceived conflict between rationality and mysticism begins with the conflation of logic and reason, and that “all logic begins with an axiom, or self-evident truth.”

            So what is a “self-evident truth”? Much that would be regarded as self-evident has collapsed under the scrutiny of science over the centuries, from the accepted ‘fact’ that the sun revolves around the earth to the discoveries of particle physics that call into serious question the true nature of matter itself. Even the primacy of the speed of light is now questioned by evidence for non-locality in the quantum world.

            To engage in a touch of folk-philosophy, I would suggest that the only thing we can all agree is self-evident is that we each have the capacity of awareness. We are conscious beings. But what is it that our consciousness is aware of? Are we aware of an objective reality, or is reality filtered by our belief systems?

            An important clue is the common denominator reported in all mystical testimony, regardless of culture or tradition. And that is the experience of the dissolution of subject and object, the descriptions of absolute unity of being at the core of existence. What Kingsley suggests, and I agree with, is that the relentless exercise of pure reason will eventually lead one to a mystical state.

            Or to put it another way, is our reason thorough enough to be cognizant of our own belief system? It’s easy to see someone else’s. Can we see our own?

          5. All good points
            I posit that it is quite possible to access pure reason and I simply position this ‘pure reason’ beyond the limit afforded by a belief, no matter what the belief may be and no matter at which level it lies.

            To believe reality can be encompassed within the limit of the material senses for instance or that it is definable from within the limit of what is observable by means of current tools. and so on.

            The suspension of belief totally alters vision.

            Likewise, although mystics do not question the reality of their experience, belief will color their interpretation of the source of that experience.

            It will be when science and the apparently invisible meet that a real synthesis can be achieved and that the mystic may become a scientist of the invisible as much as the scientist may become a mystic of the energy.

          6. Couldn’t Agree More
            [quote=Richard]The suspension of belief totally alters vision.
            [/quote]

            Precisely, Richard. And this is the problem with today’s “skeptics”: They will question anything except their own ideology.

          7. Niiice!
            Wow! What can I say? great discussion you guys 🙂

            [quote=Richard]It will be when science and the apparently invisible meet that a real synthesis can be achieved and that the mystic may become a scientist of the invisible as much as the scientist may become a mystic of the energy.[/quote]

            I think it’s possible than in the distant past this is what actually happenned. There was no clear distinction between science and religion. Priests adored the elements of Nature (stars, the sun, energy…), but they also tried to understand it, at least enough to harness it to their use.

            I remember reading a passage of the graphic novel “Watchmen”, that stated that when scientists lost the sense of awe and wonder in the misteries they found in the Universe, in their effor to deconstruct it to smaller cataloguable factors, something very important was being lost. Likewise can be said of te mystic at the other side of the spectrum.

            I cry everytime I watch the movie “Contact”, when the scientist interpreted by Jodie Foster finds herself completely overwhelmed by the wondrous majesty of the galactic center, and ends up saying “They should have sent a poet” 🙂

            Balance and Moderation, as Anthony is constantly reminding us; that’s the key.
            —–
            It’s not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me…
            It’s all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

            Red Pill Junkie

          8. loss of sense of awe
            I can assure you that scientists do not usually lose their sense of awe any more than mystic people.

            Of course, when mysticism, religion, or science get to be big business, there is another effect. Namely that the administrative types gain more influence – we have to get enough money to keep the search going.

            Balance and moderation are fine. I say we have to keep searching in all directions. That’s not taking the middle way, or the way of consensus. It is taking all ways.

            Now of course one person cannot do all that. But we have more than 6 billion persons, so we can explore more than 2 ways.

            —-
            If we don’t succeed, we run the risk of failure.

            (Bill Clinton, and perhaps others)

          9. Balance and Moderation
            Earthling said:

            ‘Balance and moderation are fine. I say we have to keep searching in all directions. That’s not taking the middle way, or the way of consensus. It is taking all ways.’

            Balance and moderation does not imply middle way or consensus. Similarly, it can look in ALL directions.
            Rather, balance and moderation is more a sensible way of observing and analysing. It is the opposite of fanaticism and single-mindedness, which, I would argue, would make the person see less, and not bother with all directions.

            …

            I’m certain of only one thing. Nothing is certain

            Anthony North

          10. look or search?
            yes you have the capacity to look in all directions. But I’m saying you don’t have enough time to actively search in all directions. There is too much work.

            I say we need some generalists, and we need some specialists. As long as nobody claims to know everything, this will work.

            One interesting problem is how to guide the search in all the different directions. My proposal is that we should not guide it – there is nobody qualified to guide it. No individuals, and no organizations.

            —-
            If we don’t succeed, we run the risk of failure.

            (Bill Clinton, and perhaps others)

          11. Certainly
            Certainly we need generalists – Patternologists, please 🙂 – and specialists. One should be bedfellow to the other. Only problem is, at present, specialists are in, and generalists dismissed as cranks.

            …

            I’m fanatical about moderation

            Anthony North

          12. specialists
            I have been thinking about what you call “patternology” for many years. There is a commonality to many problems, and solutions, in a variety of fields.

            What I am looking for, and haven’t found it yet, is the specialist approach to being a generalist.

            I am not twisting words here. But I think it is one thing we need – a more formal way of being a generalist.

            The reason that, as you say, specialists are “in” is that they can usually be very formal about what they do. Mathematics, experiments, controlled stuff like that. Whereas generalists are seen most as philosophical.

            So I look for ways to be more formal as a generalist. Patterns are a promising approach.

            —-
            If we don’t succeed, we run the risk of failure.

            (Bill Clinton, and perhaps others)

          13. Patternology
            Patterns are, indeed, the way to approach it. If patterns can be found, say, between two specialisations, suggesting something from one field may have value in another, then it can be identified by pattern.
            All it needs is for the specialists to accept the validity of an approach outside their specialisation. In this way the two approaches to knowledge could work side by side.
            A big problem is, as you say, in verification of a pattern. So Patternology should have a hard, fast rule. It should never deal in ‘truth’ or ‘proof’, but probability, and be used as a way to ask questions of specialists.
            Hence, ‘proofs’, etc, would still be the preserve of the specialist, but the Patternologist has taken off his blinkers so he can see straight.

            …

            Reality, like time, is relative to the observer

            Anthony North

          14. Chaos theory
            Chaos theory in the 80s-90s was probably the closest thing to the acceptance of patternologists over specialists; but in the end most researchers don’t like people from outside their field to come to their labs and look fom over their shoulders at what they are doing. Scientists, like most humans, are deeply territorial animals 🙂

            —–
            It’s not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me…
            It’s all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

            Red Pill Junkie

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Mobile menu - fractal