This kind off exchange is one of the reasons that I really love this email
list. As a person who is trying to bridge the apparent abyss between
Hugh's reality (which I cohabit) and the day to day, seemingly "ordinary"
consensus reality of the industrialized, urbanized world, I congratulate
Hugh on following his vision no matter where it leads. Though some of the
material discussed in this thread is certainly arcane and imprecise, I
believe it points to the vast, mysterious universe that enfolds the narrow
boundaries of the rational constructs that have dominated the last few
hundred years.
My wife is a Therapeutic Touch practitioner, a healing modality gaining
increasing acceptance in mainstream medicine. She deals everyday with the
invisible and unknowable in a rationalist sense, yet achieves remarkable
success in alleviating pain and dis-ease. The proof is in the pudding.
Seeing the world we live in as an agreement between us rather than some
kind of objective reality with an existence separate from us, is a good
first step.
Jeff
At 09:29 AM 4/1/00 -0500, you wrote:
>Dear Saneters,
>
>Roberto Verzola posted:
>
>DH> >>>I sincerely think BD would do best to ground their claims in
>DH> >>>measurable units. Otherwise, we're just talking about preferences,
>DH> >>>and anyone can be emphatic. Defining the results as well as possible
>DH> >>>would be more likely to induce anyone interested to try it on his or
>DH> >>>her own.
> > >
> > >HL> Point well taken, Douglas. Myself I'm not too sure what measurable
> > >HL> units to ground things with. What we are dealing with here are
> > >HL> holistic systems. Patterns. Any tiny fragment of one of these
> > >HL> holistic patterns reflects the entire pattern.
> > >
>DH> >Well I was never aware of any measurable results from those things (as
>DH> >mentioned), and measurable results simply means that 1).- they can be
>DH> >repeated, and 2).- a pattern can be discerned and presented (that's
>DH> >the knowing where to look for it part). Then you can measure it.
> >
>RV>Douglas,
> >
>RV>We're getting philosophical here, but maybe this is the right time to
>RV>do so... You might want to expand your conception of reality beyond
>RV>those phenomena which can be measured. "If I can't measure it, it
>RV>isn't real" one of the foundations of reductionist science which is
>RV>currently under question.
> >
>RV>Don't you think it is possible to perceive realities qualitatively
>RV>instead of quantitatively?
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >Roberto
> >
>
>Yes, Roberto.
>
>What I'm talking about certainly is the qualitative rather than the
>quantitative. I'm talking about looking at things in context rather than
>viewing them as isolates. I realize that our culture has it hammered home
>that quality and context are "subjective" and somehow that is invalid.
>Meanwhile measurement of physical parameters without reference to context
>is "objective" and somehow that is all that is valid.
>
>It is that old nusiance, dualism, rearing its ugly head. Kant said that the
>only means of knowing a thing is real is to apprehend it with the five
>senses. I still don't know how he sold that one to virtually everyone, but
>he did. This means that inspiration, purpose, values--even past and
>future--all are not real. Bah!
>
>This takes me back to my early Catholic Catechism days where we were
>drilled on the proposition that God is everywhere and in all things, but
>not in You, sinner! How can this be? How can "subjective" be NOT real while
>"objective" IS? Inspiration, purpose, values, history and destiny are some
>of the most real things we experience. These are the movers behind all we
>do in the physical universe. Talk about five senses? These five are what
>make the information of the senses sensIBLE. Without them nothing MAKES
>sense.
>
>Forgive me all you knee-jerk dualists, please. I am a monist. In my life
>subjective and objective are one. I walk along and, voila! There is a six
>leaf clover! I saw it because first of all I had the concept and then the
>percept. Someone else walks along and sees a penny on the ground at the
>same location, but would never see the six leaf clover in a dozen years.
>This is not a purely objective reality we share. It is, rather, a reality
>where objective and subjective are conjoined. I never bought what they were
>selling in Catechism Class as I couldn't see how God could be everywhere
>and in all things without also being in me and verily in my every thought.
>
>Having said that let me hasten to validate Douglas' search for specificity.
>If the subjective is really conjoined with the objective then his desires
>can be met. For sure they can be. Here is part of another exchange between
>Douglas and myself:
>
> >>
> >>HL> And since these patterns are dynamic and furthermore are organized
> >>HL> into systems of systems of systems, etc. of dynamic patterns it
> >>HL> doesn't make much sense to pull isolated measures out of this
> >>HL> flux.
> >>
>DH>>Sorry Hugh, that's overly general in my book. I think you're painting
>DH>>yourself into a corner by losing the specificity, the diversity. What
>DH>>you want to do is *define* those dynamic patterns, systems of systems
>DH>>etc., not simply label them as such. There's no progress in that, and
>DH>>progress does matter, just as time does. We're going somewhere, and I
>DH>>don't feel like I'm in the back seat, or just an observer.
> >
> >
>HL>Nothing wrong with wanting specificity here. Try to realize that I have
>to gloss over some things just to get a post like this down and mailed in
>one morning.
> >
>HL>To go from quantum mechanics at the atomic level to the level of amino
>acids organizing into proteins, to the level of DNA and RNA and their
>replication, to the level of alleles and genes, to chromosomes, to cells,
>to tissues, to organs, to individuals of a species, to phyla, etc. ? That's
>a bit more work. But you want the specificity spelled out? Okay. You want
>to use your own imagination and dream about what I might mean by my vague
>generalities? That's okay too. I HAVE thought about this stuff. But
>needless to say I wouldn't want to deprive you of the opportunity to do a
>bit of your own thinking too.
> >
> >
>
>So from my point of view I don't have much of a problem with the specificty
>and measurement of things. That can all be accomplished, though as the
>things under discussion become more and more subtle the difficulties of
>specific measurement can outstrip present means. Wait a bit, however, and
>some method of measurement is likely to turn up--not that I think it likely
>we will ever be able to measure the whole context and pin down quality to
>our specimen board the way we do quantity. But measurement is a perfectly
>valid way of looking at things. I use it all the time. Great stuff! What I
>have trouble with is the folks who would enforce the belief that
>measurement is the ONLY valid way of looking at things. What bilge!
>
>Thanks for bringing this up.
>
>Warmest regards,
>Hugh Lovel
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
>"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
>"unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
>To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
>"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
>
>All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
>http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Apr 05 2000 - 20:00:37 EDT