rational/empirical humanism vs scientism

[Guest guest]

Dear Are,

 

Thanks for so succinctly, diplomatically and pointedly addressing a

concern that many of us have with the humanistic

rationalists/empiricists: that the dynamics of our world and existance

are more than what meets the eye or can be measured with our current

instrumentation. As you point out quantum physics has enlightened us to

a new paradigm of our connectivity, to use Ken Rose's term. IMHO, much

which is beyond our understanding is quite different than feel-good

" new-agism " , magic or showmanship. I strongly feel that the two tenets

we need to use when viewing phenomena beyond our comprehension are: one,

there is the possiblility that we someday may be able to explain the

currrently unexplainable rationally, or two, because we are limited by

time and physicality, it is possible that we may never be able to explain

them. Either way, to dismiss that which is " meta " physical as " new-age " ,

magic or religion is the major danger of the pseudo-science of scientism.

Its tenets too are founded upon fundamentalism.

 

Respectfully,

 

Yehuda

 

PS I am sending this to you privately, as well, Are, as I am not sure

that This was received before Todd's deadline on this topic

 

I encourage research into validating ancient wisdom. I deplore as

McCarthyism the complete discreditation of the non-explainable such as

mysticism as magic or new-ageism.

On Fri, 28 May 2004 09:23:48 +0200 " Are Thoresen " <arethore

writes:

> Hi

> but remember that mysticism also has its own rationality. It is only

> different to the rationality of materialism.

> For example; synchronism is not-rationale in materialistic science

> (with the possible exception within Quantum-theory), but in

> mysticism it is rationale.

>

> Are

>

> Are Simeon Thoresen

> arethore

> http://home.online.no/~arethore/

>

> -

>

>

> Thursday, May 27, 2004 5:41 PM

> Re: NPR synchronicity

>

>

> , " Barry Thorne "

> <thornedist@c...> wrote:

>

> >

> >

> > I don't think that the use of the term " magical " is correct.

> Perhaps you

> > should substitute fundamentalist.

> >

>

>

> ther majority of americans now believe in a literal interpretation

> of the bible. that is

> magical thinking. This country was indeed founded by anti-magical

> thinkers like

> Jefferson, etc. Alas, there efforts were to no avail.

> Fundamentalism is magical by

> definition. Magical thinking uses myth and fancy to explain the

> world and rejects rational

> thought.

>

> Todd

>

>

>

>

> Chinese Herbal Medicine offers various professional services,

> including board approved continuing education classes, an annual

> conference and a free discussion forum in Chinese Herbal Medicine.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Yehuda

 

This is what I call the Flatland-principle. How can a two-dimensional

being understand the concept of three dimensions.

I think we should be modest enough to consider the possibility that

we are flatlanders in some aspects of medicine / life.

 

Best wishes

 

Alwin

 

--- yehuda l frischman wrote:

> ... one,

> there is the possiblility that we someday may be able to explain the

> currrently unexplainable rationally, or two, because we are

limited by

> time and physicality, it is possible that we may never be able to

explain

> them. Either way, to dismiss that which is " meta " physical as " new-

age " ,

> magic or religion is the major danger of the pseudo-science of

scientism.

> Its tenets too are founded upon fundamentalism.