Beauty (or aesthetics)

For those deep thinkers out there.
User avatar
Nature of a Man
Usher
Usher
Posts: 468
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2017 12:14 am

Re: Beauty (or aesthetics)

Post by Nature of a Man » Fri Dec 21, 2018 4:31 pm

durangopipe wrote:
Fri Dec 21, 2018 12:22 am
“natureofaman” wrote: ... and my understanding is that evolution is primarily an Eastern religious concept, such as in the Hindu religion, which was later appropriated by the West, despite having been an Eastern concept for thousands of years before Darwin arrived as a somewhat amateurish latecomer to the scene.
A bit off the “beauty” topic, but that part of your post, well ...

A cosmology or religious tradition is not science.
In my view science (or at least "pure science" for the sake of understanding the universe, rather than more pragmatic means such as devising military technologies) is ultimately another of many religious traditions, all major world religions had an "intellectual" branch, modern science is just a continuation of that in a Western context.

Most of modern Western science, specifically, was derived from Eastern religion and cosmology; the Western Enlightenment followed the interaction of Europeans such as Marco Polo with with the Orient, and their attempt to emulate the Eastern ways of gaining Enlightenment.

The physicist Fritjof Capra has a book "The Tao of Physics" which reveals the parallels between modern physics and Eastern cosmology.

https://www.amazon.com/tao-physics/s?pa ... %20physics

As a scienctist, Darwin was not late to the scene. True, no scientist works in a vacuum, he had precursors, but I think that comment was a little over the top.
I personally disagree with that, given that evolution was a prominent concept of the Hindu and Buddhist religions, and Westerners like Darwin only invented their own version of the concept thousands of years later. Compared to the East, I'd argue he was definitely an amateur.
Spiritual traditions that focus on the concept of constant change might be seen as early formulations of Evolutionry Theory if one likes creating complicated (in my opinion unjustifiable) intellectual pretzels, but I’ve got a funny feeling you were referring to something more specific: reincarnation.

Adaptation through random mutation and natural selection, and speciation through natural selection over very long periods of time is kind of hard to equate in a meaningful way with a spiritual cosmology that includes an idea like reincarnation. Screwing up in this life and coming back as a worm isn’t evolution. Not screwing up and moving “higher” isn’t either. (Forgive the Westernized language.)
The reincarnation aspect specifically isn't directly relevant here, however it was built on the notion that all life forms originated from the same source, with more complex ones deriving from simpler forms, which is the central theme behind modern evolutionary theory. (This was something which Eastern scientists and mystics had theorized about for thousands of years before Europe took up the concept).
Calling Darwin’s body of hugely diligent and conscientious scientific work “amateurish” is grossly inaccurate. There are some (many here) who consider the theory flawed, a contradiction of scripture (many Christian scholars do not), but the work was certainly characterized by “professionalism” as it pertains to the conduct of science.
I consider it "amateurish" in comparison to the East, given that Easterners had developed earlier versions of the evolutionary theory thousands of years before Westerners arrived at the sense, and my view is that most modern Western scientific concepts were largely derived from the East to begin with.

(My personal belief is that Asians tend to be naturally superior at scientific and technological endeavors, and it may have something to do with the nature of their world religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism having placed a stronger theme on intellectually investigating the nature of the universe than Western religions traditionally have - as as example, Asians have made up as much as 29% of MIT's students, despite being only about 5% of the general population.

https://nypost.com/2018/05/25/asians-ar ... ve-action/
Offered as a friend.
Truly.

I do love admire your spirit.
Thanks, I appreciate the feedback.

User avatar
durangopipe
Under-secretary to the Minister of Pipe Breaking
Under-secretary to the Minister of Pipe Breaking
Posts: 6498
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2016 3:58 pm
Location: Southwest Colorado

Re: Beauty (or aesthetics)

Post by durangopipe » Fri Dec 21, 2018 6:18 pm

Nature of a Man wrote:
Fri Dec 21, 2018 4:31 pm
durangopipe wrote:
Fri Dec 21, 2018 12:22 am
“natureofaman” wrote: ... and my understanding is that evolution is primarily an Eastern religious concept, such as in the Hindu religion, which was later appropriated by the West, despite having been an Eastern concept for thousands of years before Darwin arrived as a somewhat amateurish latecomer to the scene.
A bit off the “beauty” topic, but that part of your post, well ...

A cosmology or religious tradition is not science.
In my view science (or at least "pure science" for the sake of understanding the universe, rather than more pragmatic means such as devising military technologies) is ultimately another of many religious traditions, all major world religions had an "intellectual" branch, modern science is just a continuation of that in a Western context.

Most of modern Western science, specifically, was derived from Eastern religion and cosmology; the Western Enlightenment followed the interaction of Europeans such as Marco Polo with with the Orient, and their attempt to emulate the Eastern ways of gaining Enlightenment.

The physicist Fritjof Capra has a book "The Tao of Physics" which reveals the parallels between modern physics and Eastern cosmology.

https://www.amazon.com/tao-physics/s?pa ... %20physics

As a scienctist, Darwin was not late to the scene. True, no scientist works in a vacuum, he had precursors, but I think that comment was a little over the top.
I personally disagree with that, given that evolution was a prominent concept of the Hindu and Buddhist religions, and Westerners like Darwin only invented their own version of the concept thousands of years later. Compared to the East, I'd argue he was definitely an amateur.
Spiritual traditions that focus on the concept of constant change might be seen as early formulations of Evolutionry Theory if one likes creating complicated (in my opinion unjustifiable) intellectual pretzels, but I’ve got a funny feeling you were referring to something more specific: reincarnation.

Adaptation through random mutation and natural selection, and speciation through natural selection over very long periods of time is kind of hard to equate in a meaningful way with a spiritual cosmology that includes an idea like reincarnation. Screwing up in this life and coming back as a worm isn’t evolution. Not screwing up and moving “higher” isn’t either. (Forgive the Westernized language.)
The reincarnation aspect specifically isn't directly relevant here, however it was built on the notion that all life forms originated from the same source, with more complex ones deriving from simpler forms, which is the central theme behind modern evolutionary theory. (This was something which Eastern scientists and mystics had theorized about for thousands of years before Europe took up the concept).
Calling Darwin’s body of hugely diligent and conscientious scientific work “amateurish” is grossly inaccurate. There are some (many here) who consider the theory flawed, a contradiction of scripture (many Christian scholars do not), but the work was certainly characterized by “professionalism” as it pertains to the conduct of science.
I consider it "amateurish" in comparison to the East, given that Easterners had developed earlier versions of the evolutionary theory thousands of years before Westerners arrived at the sense, and my view is that most modern Western scientific concepts were largely derived from the East to begin with.

(My personal belief is that Asians tend to be naturally superior at scientific and technological endeavors, and it may have something to do with the nature of their world religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism having placed a stronger theme on intellectually investigating the nature of the universe than Western religions traditionally have - as as example, Asians have made up as much as 29% of MIT's students, despite being only about 5% of the general population.

https://nypost.com/2018/05/25/asians-ar ... ve-action/
Offered as a friend.
Truly.

I do love admire your spirit.
Thanks, I appreciate the feedback.
And I, the response.

Okay, now that you mention The Tao of Physics (I imagine you’ve read The Dancing Wu Li Masters, too) I have a better idea where you’re coming from.

I am not in agreement with your position, but I know it can be and has been intelligently argued by many. One of my dear friends and mentors, Dolores LaChapelle, was a major and prolific proponent of the same view: science is a Western maladaptation and expression of ancient ways of knowing: indigenous cosmologies, the pre-Socratics in the West, damn near anything Eastern. Over the years I came to disagree with her about almost everything except snow, rock and our friendship.

For her, the arrival of the “Greek Hero” was the end of legitimate Western thought, with a few exceptions (like Heidegger).

At one time there was no distinction, even in the Western tradition, between science and philosophy. Science was “natural philosophy.” But after Descartes, most Western philosophers and scientists drew a hard line between science as a method for exploring the nature of the physical world and other approaches to elaborating the nature of reality in metaphysics.

But I do agree that the conversation about the scientific method in epistemology (philosophy of science, meta-science, as opposed to science itself) is ongoing even without embracing the view you and Dolores embrace. I alluded to this in my first response to one of your posts.

Okay. Capra. Maybe Zukav.

Maybe Prigogene?
Perhaps some Thomas Kuhn?

Know ‘em well, and have a much better idea what tradition your working in and where you’re coming from now.

Thanks, Noam.
. . . be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God in Christ forgave you. Ephesians 4:32 (NKJV)

The most improper job of any man, even saints, is bossing other men. Not one in a million is fit for it, and least of all those who seek the opportunity.. J.R.R. Tolkien

2017 Morley - Outstanding BRATASS of the Year

Post Reply