Ive noticed that many of the focii cling to the notion that science is
irrefutable. Pirsig somewhere states that science is
distinquished from religion simply because it has an eraser (so its dynamic
in a sense). If im not mistaken David B claimed
that science fails miserably when it comes to understanding the basis of the
"I". I tend to agree, but it also fails when it
comes to explaining Gaia as a whole. Quite simply, I doubt science could
ever divide the "i" into its nice neat format. In
order to investigate the self, one must be a third party that is seperate
from the self. Buddhist philosophy points to the
conception that the mind cannot be the idea of itself, and be itself at the
same time, because its one and the same thing. We
are using the idea of objectivity in a subjective sense, and thus
objectivity is subjective, which I will delve deeper into
later...Now, the pitfalls of language essentially force us to call the Self
an idea (the notion of "I"), and therefore the tension of
doing this creates the Freudian ego and superego. I read somewhere that it
is like trying to walk by using your hands to pick
up the feet (Alan Watt I think). On a physical basis, can a hand hold
itself? Can the eye see itself? I think it will be a basic
paradox of human existence for a long time, and likely as long as people are
around...I have a tendency to want to "feel
myself feeling happy" so that I can get the most of it...this actually ruins
the entire notion of happiness because I am relating
my static blocks of knowledge to a totally dynamic feeling. Its like eating
food and, not content with tasting the food, I am
also trying to taste my tongue tasting the food. I hope that made sense.
The actual notion of objectivity is subjective since it has be contained
within a subjective vessel. For example im sure each
one of us understands objectivity in a different way. Scientific truths
endeavour to be objective by relating an almost
incomprehensible world into a comprehensible format. However, it could
never relate the world in a true sense b/c it aims
its truths to be graspable by the human mind via mathematics, language etc.
Like almost any system, like morality, it falls
apart when taken out of its structure. Pirsig discusses anthropology as
being similar to this, since anthropology barely has a
makeshift system to follow and thus it cannot explain human behaviour
properly. Science has a system, but it only makes
sense within its system. Hence we have the hypthesis...it is simply asking a
question and answering it, and ever Pirsig
admitted that many hypotheses are wrong simply because the question is too
broad. All the anwers as well must fall into
special guidelines. If youve been to a shrink you will find that
psychiatrists do not let you ramble since your affliction must
fall into their carefully defined catagories, and therefore they only ask
you questions and you must answer them individually
without going on a tangent. Psychologists on the other hand do not have an
MD and are therefore less credible to the masses,
but they endeavour to "fix" the mind with the mind. This relates to Pirsig
and the mental institution alluding to the fact that he
had not changed very much since he was in there, but only told them what
they wanted to hear. You see, it follows a ridgid
system. It even has its own set of terminology to make it "easier" to
understand. Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Cioran etc. all
examined existence with existence and were therefore essentially
irrefutable. Although Kant used traditional means to relate
his Critiques, he came to the conclusion that the basis of the Self is
unknowable and dismissed any refutations one could
possibly have.
Like religion, science is an understandable way of grasping the
ingraspable and therefore appeal to many people (like
Christianity and other western religions). Kierkegaard mentioned in Fear
and Trembling, that it is one of life's biggest
paradoxes -- to scale the infinite into the finite. In fact, as im sure
most of you know, infinite means simply "not finite"
meaning infinite is ungraspable and so we had to say what it is not. This
is similar to contradiction meaning "against words"
meaning the source of contradictions is simply the ambiguities of
language...
One cannot dismiss the so-called advances in scientific research, but the
result is an incredible increase in the "quality" of
static quality, even though most argue it is both static and dynamic.
Science is only irrefutable because of its system and only
when one is applying the system to refute the system (a problem to say the
least). Now, most people judge others in a
categorical sense, and we live in a word of categorisation, systemisation
etc. which can be both good and bad, but in my
humble opinion, it is taking us farther from appreciating life for what it
is. That is, pure indiluted existence - a mainly
dynamic view of everything.
I would write more, however I am @ work and it calls. I am curious to your
reactions however, if any...
Nishant Taneja
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:18 BST