The Arts and Sciences are traditionally two separate disciplines. The first includes the human mind as an imperfect interpreter as a context, and the other does not.
Like you, I would like to bring these two disciplines together. But it's hard ;-) You can't be me, I'm taken
I would like to bring these two disciplines together
Sounds like a good vision. I think it was Wertheimer who said: "the whole is more than its parts", or something in that sense. So, yes I believe something good could come out of bringing these two disciplines together.
And thanks for the support. :-)
We are a mötley crüe of different visions here at ET. Different perspectives ;-)
For me, the underlying theme is cooperation. As I have discussed with many ETers - online and offline - about this cooperation.
Yes. I believe we CAN create something a LOT bigger than the parts. That is what nature is very good at: it's called a seed. ET imo is a seed. It will grow into what it grows into - or wither.
There's not a lot a seed can do about its situation. It is just waiting for conditions to be right. ;-) You can't be me, I'm taken
The Arts and Sciences are traditionally two separate disciplines. The first includes the human mind as an imperfect interpreter (of) a context, and the other does not.
It would seem that we have convinced ourselves that it is possible to divide the capabilities of our minds into two realms: observation, reason and description = good mind, (Stay Here!); emotion, desire, the nature of our very selves = bad mind, (Stay Out!) But if reason be the whore of desire, what then? Unless we examine the mind in as much detail as we examine quarks, gluons , meson and quantum dynamics how can we be certain of any of the findings? As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
These techniques have allowed a convergence of linguistics and cognitive science in the work of people such as George Lakoff, which has been presented in popular works such as The Political Mind. Lakoff writes of the role of both the unconscious and the conscious mind in how we perceive the world. One reason the results of such work has such acceptance as it has received is that it seems to work. Another reason is that a portion of the work can be tied to physical, neurological and biochemical observations that can be studied and verified by traditional scientific methods.
But the linguistics aspect of this work derive from a different methodology, and while the conscious portion of the mind can be directly observed by each of us, inferences about unconscious processes give many pause. And while we can, to an extent, observe the mental processes of another person through conversation, the methods we use are usually different from those of the traditional scientific method. It has been my observation that those trained in the physical sciences often have an aversion to accepting findings based on different and unfamiliar methodologies.
I would be quite pleased to be mistaken on this. To the extent that it occurs, I suspect that it may in part be due to lack of familiarity with some of the approaches. In order to, hopefully, remedy this supposed deficit, I have prepared an abridged excerpt on the subject of hermeneutics by Kees van der Pijl, which describes one such method:
Hermeneutics....shares the liberal ontology that underlies the Rational Choice and the positivist approaches... But in its epistemology, the hermeneutic perspective is different....Rational Choice has an axiomatic, deductive epistemology; positivist sociology is empirical, inductive. In (hermeneutics) a distinction is made between the relations between the knowing subject in relation to the natural world, and the knowing subject in relation to the social world. In contrast to the model of explanation developed in natural science, the hermeneutic strand adopts an epistemology which suspends the separation between knowing subject and the object of analysis--if it is another human subject (or an entity made up of such subjects). This particular connection between a human subject and people with whom the subject shares essential emotional and intellectual abilities (however differently they may be applied), makes for a unique method of interpretation, an emphatic `understanding', which is not possible when studying the moon or the ocean floor. The `facts' that positivism collects for its method of explanation of events, now include the inner world of the subject-in-action, which in this strand are available for introspection and interpretation. The social world is a universe of meaning(s) which require a different approach than that used for the observation of inarticulate phenomena. -Skip- It is from this starting point that hermeneutics (from the Greek for `interpreter') as a methodological concept emerged....(This) led to a procedure that can generally be applied to written and oral language expressions. Interpretation is the key term here, because conclusions are not drawn on the basis of observation, in which subject and object are separated; the subject as it were `enters' the object by situating him/herself in it. This process, called `divination', is composed of two steps: 1) `Placing oneself within'... and 2) `copying' or `re-living'... What happens in this process is that the interpreter shares the inner experience of the thinking or speaking or acting of the object, and once `inside', attempts to reconstruct how this speech or thought act or practical act came about in terms of motivations, the creative path to it. The divination process...is based on empathy, sharing the emotional inner world of an author or actor. It is complemented by comparison, and the method as a whole consists in a constant back and forth between divination and comparison, without ever reaching complete knowledge Note the important difference here with the positivist concern about verification, acceptance/ rejection of a hypothesis, etc.: knowledge is never `positive', but only an approximation however hard we try; to acquire knowledge is an inter-subjective process: we move from our own mind to that of somebody else. There is a forensic aspect involved that is absent from positivism.... Even so hermeneutics remains firmly anchored in the subjectivist epistemology on which actor-oriented theories are based.... (It) is clear that it can only be applied to the thinking/feeling part of the universe. One cannot enter into the inarticulate world in the same interpretive way. Hence...hermeneutics implies a separation of the human world from the natural world, and it is this separation which forms the starting point...
In contrast to the model of explanation developed in natural science, the hermeneutic strand adopts an epistemology which suspends the separation between knowing subject and the object of analysis--if it is another human subject (or an entity made up of such subjects). This particular connection between a human subject and people with whom the subject shares essential emotional and intellectual abilities (however differently they may be applied), makes for a unique method of interpretation, an emphatic `understanding', which is not possible when studying the moon or the ocean floor.
The `facts' that positivism collects for its method of explanation of events, now include the inner world of the subject-in-action, which in this strand are available for introspection and interpretation. The social world is a universe of meaning(s) which require a different approach than that used for the observation of inarticulate phenomena.
-Skip-
It is from this starting point that hermeneutics (from the Greek for `interpreter') as a methodological concept emerged....(This) led to a procedure that can generally be applied to written and oral language expressions. Interpretation is the key term here, because conclusions are not drawn on the basis of observation, in which subject and object are separated; the subject as it were `enters' the object by situating him/herself in it. This process, called `divination', is composed of two steps: 1) `Placing oneself within'... and 2) `copying' or `re-living'...
What happens in this process is that the interpreter shares the inner experience of the thinking or speaking or acting of the object, and once `inside', attempts to reconstruct how this speech or thought act or practical act came about in terms of motivations, the creative path to it. The divination process...is based on empathy, sharing the emotional inner world of an author or actor. It is complemented by comparison, and the method as a whole consists in a constant back and forth between divination and comparison, without ever reaching complete knowledge
Note the important difference here with the positivist concern about verification, acceptance/ rejection of a hypothesis, etc.:
(It) is clear that it can only be applied to the thinking/feeling part of the universe. One cannot enter into the inarticulate world in the same interpretive way. Hence...hermeneutics implies a separation of the human world from the natural world, and it is this separation which forms the starting point...
Like you, I would like to bring these two disciplines together. But it's hard ;-)
Er, not exactly :-)
What about this ?!
At ART + SCIENCE Salons, our mission is to pamper and indulge our clients with the ultimate in hair care. Our team of talented professionals blend art and science to create the ultimate look for you. Whether you want a radical change, a simple cut, or anything in between, we invite you to experience our services in person
:-)
More seriously, they are deeply linked by involving creativity - see Koestler's "Act of Creation"
"... extraordinary ingenuity Koestler has brought to his investigations in particular and his conception as a whole. The first part analyze creativity proper: the jester or comic inspiration, the sage or scientific discovery, finally the artist and the arts; all are seen to work through conscious and unconscious processes."
They've been linked for years - Leonardo being the most obvious example - later through the development of new media like photography and film, specifically in "experimental" work. More recently in examples like these:
Founded in 1988, Art & Science Collaborations, Inc. (ASCI) was one of the first art-sci-tech member organizations in the USA. Established primarily as a network for artists who either use or are inspired by science and technology, ASCI has become a magnet for some of the best examples of this type of contemporary art and for scientists and technologists wishing to collaborate. ASCI was instrumental in reinvigorating the art-sci-tech movement in the United States during the mid-1990's and helped coalesce the art-science movement [1998-2002]. ... explored potential support systems for early netart at "CyberArt'99." ASCI also produced exhibitions of kinetic art, interactive light art, solar art, digital prints, and a Womentek exhibition. http://www.asci.org/artikel72.html
http://www.asci.org/artikel72.html
The INTERFACE exhibition introduces the collaborative dynamics between New York-based polar biologist Sam Bowser and New Zealand artist Claire Beynon. In line with the United Nations' International Polar Year initiatives, http://www.asci.org/index2.php?artikel=978
http://www.asci.org/index2.php?artikel=978
See also:
In early 2005 we asked the Princeton University community to submit imagery produced in the course of research or incorporating tools and concepts from science. The response was overwhelming: more than 200 entries from nearly 100 individuals in 15 departments. We selected 55 of these works to appear in the 2005 Art of Science Exhibition. The resulting assembly of images presents a fascinating and beautiful cross section of the arts and sciences at Princeton. It celebrates the aesthetics of research and the ways in which science and art inform each other. http://www.princeton.edu/~artofsci/gallery/
The resulting assembly of images presents a fascinating and beautiful cross section of the arts and sciences at Princeton. It celebrates the aesthetics of research and the ways in which science and art inform each other.
http://www.princeton.edu/~artofsci/gallery/
and in maths and physics there is often talk about beauty and elegance as very important considerations.
Einstein does not appear to have been irrationally subordinating truth to beauty. But consider his reaction to quantum theory, the other great achievement of 20th-century physics. Though quantum theory predicted quite accurately how things work in the small, it offended his aesthetic sensibilities. It was indeterministic, so he rejected it (as did the original discoverer of the quantum, Max Planck). Other notable physicists have been even more cavalier about letting truth and beauty diverge. "My work always tried to unite the true with the beautiful," remarked Hermann Weyl, the perfecter of both relativity theory and quantum mechanics, "but when I had to choose one or the other, I usually chose the beautiful." Yet when Weyl thought he was sacrificing truth to beauty--by developing a theory of gravitation based on a whole new concept of symmetry even after he became convinced of its empirical falsity--his decision was vindicated by that concept's surprising fruitfulness over the last couple of decades. Today the religion of beauty is confessed almost universally among theoretical physicists. "You can recognize truth by its beauty and simplicity. When you get it right, it is obvious that it is right," said Richard Feynman, one of physics' most intuitive geniuses. http://www.slate.com/id/3119/
Einstein does not appear to have been irrationally subordinating truth to beauty. But consider his reaction to quantum theory, the other great achievement of 20th-century physics. Though quantum theory predicted quite accurately how things work in the small, it offended his aesthetic sensibilities. It was indeterministic, so he rejected it (as did the original discoverer of the quantum, Max Planck).
Other notable physicists have been even more cavalier about letting truth and beauty diverge. "My work always tried to unite the true with the beautiful," remarked Hermann Weyl, the perfecter of both relativity theory and quantum mechanics, "but when I had to choose one or the other, I usually chose the beautiful." Yet when Weyl thought he was sacrificing truth to beauty--by developing a theory of gravitation based on a whole new concept of symmetry even after he became convinced of its empirical falsity--his decision was vindicated by that concept's surprising fruitfulness over the last couple of decades.
Today the religion of beauty is confessed almost universally among theoretical physicists. "You can recognize truth by its beauty and simplicity. When you get it right, it is obvious that it is right," said Richard Feynman, one of physics' most intuitive geniuses.
http://www.slate.com/id/3119/
Looking back through the history of science, it is plain that beauty is a harbinger of probability only in retrospect. Most aesthetic convictions held by scientists--like the Aristotelian notion that uniform circular motion is the loveliest of all--ended up impeding the advance of knowledge. Innovations like Kepler's ellipses or quantum mechanics usually come surrounded by an aura of ugliness, which predictive success replaces with the splendor of truth.
Which is followed by the concluding bit:
The great exception is Einstein's relativity theory, a singularly heroic discovery that set the tone for the rest of the century. Today's physicists have returned to the classical Greek project of understanding the cosmos by thought alone. The beautiful Final Theory will be the true one, not because it accords with the empirical evidence, but because it reflects the mind of God--a God who geometrizes or arithmetizes, depending on your taste.
Today's physicists have returned to the classical Greek project of understanding the cosmos by thought alone.
This is a bug, not a feature.
And I suspect it wasn't written approvingly.
Free your mind, let your thoughts flow....
see more crazy cat pics You can't be me, I'm taken
Well obviously not according to your rules.
I wish I was a maverick like you Sven.
Incomprehensible jargon, unreadable graphics... Gerron with you.
Emil has posted an interesting diary, whether you disagree with its proposition or not. Deserving of more than sneering, imho. Disowned voices.
'Incomprehensible jargon and unreadable graphics' are common in all areas, although I don't find these posts of emil's to be either.
You are quite wrong. I am still fully employed. And I must leave now to continue my employment until the weekend... ;-) You can't be me, I'm taken
Emil has posted an interesting diary, whether you disagree with its proposition or not
this is endeavoured by addressing the blind spot: who are we, what is our work
for the intellectually inclined, Integral Theory makes it insightful that there are blind spots and how they can be addressed. Previous postings also have this intention.
posting more elaborately seems redundant, since all the information is available for all to see. See also reply to Colman below
Actually, those pictures appear to contain about a 1000 words, few of which are found in that order in normal english. Any chance of an explanation that isn't obfuscated by the jargon?
posting pictures is intended to evoke curiosity and consequent greater knowledge regarding the subject matter. Pictures aren't always sufficiently sharp in order to read the fine print. I hope this does not hinder curiousity.
Integral Theory addresses spirituality, as it addresses any perspective. Leading to the adagium 'all perspectives are true, but partial'
'spirituality' (that is the non dual pointer versions) transcends and includes all perspectives. It can only be explored by using the proper techniques and tools. Given the uniqueness of the findings (as in any specialized field), only an audience of the adequate (who have gone before using the techniques and tools) can deliver relevant feedback regarding what one's explorations have come up with. Just the scientific method applied to a forgotten/disowned/unfamiliar domain.
You're the one who takes a week to write twenty "good" words, remember? Presumably, words that communicate efficiently?
As for unreadable, if you can read the pic above headed AQAL, you're lucky.
And finally, "prefect sniggering" is worse than a cheap shot. There is, firstly, no sniggering going on. Secondly, if Colman and I weren't front-pagers, I suppose you'd have to talk about (supposed) sniggering coming from the back of the class? (Where you like to flatter yourself you sit?)
Here's an interesting article about bullying (entirely unrelated to the present discussion for the main). The very interesting bit is at the end:
Dr Michael Eslea, senior lecturer in psychology at the University of Central Lancashire said the research was interesting but needed to be repeated in a larger sample. "A better understanding of the biological basis of these things is good to have but the danger is it causes people to leap to biological solutions - drugs - rather than other behavioural solutions.
My argument has been, consistently here at ET, that behaviour is moulded by drugs. Though internally applied drugs, rather than external.
You must ask emil what his diary was meant to mean and to activate. You must ask him to explain the jargon and the graphics. Just because I 'appreciate' his diary, does not mean that I agree with it or even fully understand it. It means that there is a glimpse of a 'what-if' insight that seems to be original and, to me, relevant. That is - worth investing my time to try to understand.
I would indeed be prepared to spend several hours preparing an appraisal of this diary, and an explanation of what it means to me - if I thought that I could deliver that analysis to a receptive feedback what-if audience in the snug, without that loudmouth P.N. Other wandering in from the Lounge bar and breathing over my shoulder. Nudge nudge. After all, many of the conversations I have in the RW rotate around this subject. I just spent 3 hours this evening in a delightful dinner with an 84 year old former CEO of a major Finnish industrial company. You'd be surprised how spiritual it was ;-) Impending mortality was ever thus.
It is possible to kill an interesting conversation. I know, I've done it myself here. Emil Möller has posted some challenging diaries here in the past: I haven't always been involved in their commentary - but I have read them all. An inability to manage Jpegs, or write without jargon, is not a barrier to communication. This last occasion - this diary - I wanted to offer some encouragement, but also some scepticism. It would have been nice to continue the what-if discussion without the kids in the back shouting "When are we there?".
Sometimes you have to put in more than you get out. I've had my spats with all of you. I humbly apologize for being illiterate. I just feel that some conversations are best conducted with an open mind and an investment in trying to understand what might be a repudiation of what you believe. If you know everything already, then of course repudiation is the last thing you want. But as the video illuminated, should you have watched it, the Big Mind is about the happiness created by being a Seeker and the recovery of some of your own voices.
Of course, I would say that seeking to be a Seeker IS behavioural. ;-)
There is a much wider context to ET than energy, political power or Aglo disease. That context includes a 'spiritual' element - why are we here? Why are You here? The answers are partly in classical thought, and historical analogues, but also in today's technological zeitgeist that has some phase shifting implications - where some elements and tools of classical thought are no longer so very useful imo...
What I got out of Big Mind, was the idea of wholeness as liberation. Wholeness that puts You into the physical world that science describes. You with your perceptions. You with your behaviours. That is what interests me, and this diary added another couple of pieces to the 10 gazillion piece jigsaw that might be called Jehovah, yod-he-vau-he, or an octagonal equation. It is not a jigsaw that anyone ever completed as far as I know - the difficulty being that there is no picture on the box to work from. You can't be me, I'm taken
Some interesting thoughts occurred as a result of my effort to understand. Those thoughts might have been worth discussing. As would other positive thoughts - by which I mean thoughts directed toward learning something new and possibly useful.
I am sceptical of the Big Mind video lecture situation, because I had a sense that some of the people were directed or directed themselves to offer 'please the authority' answers. Other answers however came out as genuine new thoughts for those who gave them. IMO any method that stimulates greater self and situational awareness - especially if it is gently elucidated and 'loving', is worthwhile.
It would be stimulating to talk more, and I would hope that those people who feel intimidated, enraged or upset by these subjects would just leave such a diary alone and allow it to develop naturally. Disagreements always occur in such discussions - the language is difficult, the words come with so much baggage. But tolerance of those difficulties is necessary for communication. You can't be me, I'm taken
intimidated, enraged or upset by these subjects would just leave such a diary alone and allow it to develop naturally.
come on sven, you know PN'ing is fun! ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
I am sceptical of the Big Mind video lecture situation, because I had a sense that some of the people were directed or directed themselves to offer 'please the authority' answers.
I find that holds true for almost any training program. Though, I found it interesting to go along with the process myself and was more interested in what I could come up myself.
I agree with you that it would be nice to have some more openness for different ideas. I am glad emil posted the link to the Big Mind, because I was tempted to do it myself a few months back, but decided against it because I was wary about the reactions it might receive here. I love to share and explore different kinds of ideas, even things I do not believe - but I have trouble if I have to prove things. I am not interested in proving things, often I do not even care if they are true. In case of the Big Mind, is it true that we have different parts? I am aware that it is a concept, that probably isn't true, but it works to create more balance and to even solve problems.
What I am interested in is if ideas or concepts work or help to solve problems. I found that there are things that work for me, but not for others or that things work for others, but not for me. What I am really interested in is to explore human potentials and how we can overcome limitations.
So - by reading this - am I subverted? Am I changed by exposure to such communication. Perhaps in same way I must be. It is hard to unlearn stuff ;-)
But with the Big Mind, or any other challenging idea, I like to treat it as I would watching a movie - allowing it into my mind to experience it as other movie goers (or seminar goers and any other audiences) experience it. Only then can I find out if the dialogue (or the movie) is useful. In other words I try to prejudge as little as possible. You can't be me, I'm taken
His work is, in my view, a largely successful attempt to tie together what can be learned from the application of hermeneutics, as I described in a comment up-tread, with what has been found using the more general "positivist" scientific approach. He describes his approach as "integral" in that he seeks to integrate that knowledge we can obtain by looking within ourselves and others with that knowledge that can be gained by looking at objects that are separate from the observer.
AQAL is an acronym for All Quadrant, All Levels. This is a conceptual format that he has expressed in a diagram with four quadrants drawn on graph paper which emoller has posted down-thread. Emoller has also posted other diagrams of Wilber's. These can be helpful as mnemonic devices and illustrations if you are familiar with his work.
From the late '60s through the early '80s I was interested in psychology both intellectually and as a practical matter. I needed to understand the mental processes of various people I was dealing with at that time in Hollywood, in part so that I could get my work done, in part to maintain my own sanity and in part to protect my own life and those of people I cared about. I read such works as Ego Development by Jane Loevenger, Ego Psychology by Gertrude and Rubin Blank, Temperament and Development by Thomas and Chess, Cognative Development by Luria, The Analysis of the Self by Heinz Kohut and many more. This self study did largely succeed in its objectives, although many may question my sanity, but had the disadvantage of not being something I could share with most people I knew.
I have only read one of Wilbur's books to this point, Integral Psychology. I found it not only to take account of the psychology I had read but to illuminate that work with his own insights. I found it to have, among other things, an excellent, concise treatment of the whole subject of pre-modern or traditional societies and thought, modern society and thought and "post-modern" variations. He also develops a perspective from which he can resolve the infamous "mind-body" dualism conundrum, though not in a manner that will be satisfying to all.
What I find perplexing in the responses to emoller's diary is all of the attention from Coleman and Ted Welch for something which, from the tenor of their remarks and questions, I do not believe they are truly interested in attempting to understand. If this belief is unfounded, I would certainly be pleased to do what ever my own limited abilities would allow to assist. As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
I think with these topics and understanding them it is like with any other area, you have to learn the language and its vocabulary. The 'Chinese' here on ET for me is the 'Economese' language. I have a very hard time understanding what is being said as i do not have the vocabulary and the meaning behind it. If I want to understand, for example, one of Migeru's diaries on economy I have to continuesly look up the words with google. Slowly I am learning the language. I guess the same goes with any other topic. I remember learning physics and chemistry, etc., which to be able to learn what it is all about I had to learn first their language. After I got the basic vocabulary it slowly started to make a little sense to me.
What I find perplexing in the responses to emoller's diary is all of the attention from Coleman and Ted Welch for something which, from the tenor of their remarks and questions, I do not believe they are truly interested in attempting to understand.
What do you mean "all of the attention" ? I made ONE response to one of Sven's comments, not the diary as such - then I responded to comments on my comment. So there is no "perplexing" gap between my "attention" and my supposed lack of interest in understanding. Perhaps you'd care to retract ? This seems on a par with the perplexing gap between claims of "closed minds" in ET and the actual evidence for them.
Nor do I see why you assume Colman is not "truly" interested in understanding when he made some perfectly reasonable requests for clarification. Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
Then, on Thursday, Coleman commented on one of Sven's posts:
Has anyone in this discussion ever done any science? It's turning into a recital of nonsensical stereotypes about how science is done. Or about how Art is done for that matter.
Previous to this, but down thread, in a response to my comment, Coleman had asked me:
What aversion to studying the human mind?
Then there ensues a series of comments between yourself, Coleman and others conducted from your perspective. By the end of Thursday such comments outnumbered those actually attempting to respond to the subject of emilmoller's diary by two to one. I have seen such activity described elsewhere as "hijacking." I did wonder if you felt impelled to change the terms of discussion to ones within which you felt more comfortable.
I have made this response at your request as a courtesy to you. I had the time due to a cold snap that has quelled my desire to do more landscaping. If my comments have upset or offended you, that was not my intent. I was just informing you of how I saw things. I usually do not find such "he said," then "he said" dialogues useful, but I am always willing to try to further understanding of the sort of discussion that I believe emilmoller was offering. As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
Then, on Thursday, Coleman commented on one of Sven's posts: Has anyone in this discussion ever done any science? It's turning into a recital of nonsensical stereotypes about how science is done. Or about how Art is done for that matter. To me this seemed, (perhaps unintentionally,) dismissive. Coleman seemed, to me, annoyed by the whole thread and seemed to complain that it was not confined to his preferred scientific perspective.
To me this seemed, (perhaps unintentionally,) dismissive. Coleman seemed, to me, annoyed by the whole thread and seemed to complain that it was not confined to his preferred scientific perspective.
It's really up to Colman top respond, but I don't see how his comment entails that he: "seemed to complain that it was not confined to his preferred scientific perspective." He was just saying, as he's entiitled to do, that he felt science - and art - were being caricatured. If you think that's wrong the appropriate response is to explain to him why, not allege that he is insisting on "his preferred scientific perspective."
OK, after the accusation that "all my attention" - pretty minimal in fact, is "perplexing" given your opinion of my interest in the subject of the diary, we now get the absurd accusation that I was involved in "hijacking" ! Paranoia rules.
I did NOT "change the terms of discussion" and frankly I resent the accusation that I did, supposedly to ensure "ones within which you felt more comfortable". I simply responded to a comment by Sven and that response was about how the arts and sciences are linked by things like the creative process and an interest in beauty - not so alien to the themes in the diary. That then led to some comments by Colman and TBG and I responded - it's a discussion. Your accusation about "hijacking" is absurd not only because my comment was not alien to the spirit of the diary, but also because there is no limitation on the number of comments which can be made. So the lack of many other comments on the diary is not because someone "hijacked it" - but because there weren't enougn people making comments - blame those who didn't comment, not those who did. Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
"there is so much here that is disowned."
"I would hope that ET could approach some of this stuff with a more open mind."
Why not wait and IF there are examples of closed minds disowning stuff, respond to that.
Colman merely asked a series of relevant questions - but so far only ARGeezer has responded. I challenged your claim that it was difficult to bring the arts and sciences together - and provided some evidence (OK I am lucky enough to have more time than some others) - no response. Instead you attacked others for supposedly "sneering and "sniggering" when they were asking relevant questions and making critical comments - perfectly legitimate. We are not obliged to accept ANYTHING that is put forward; that is not being open-minded, it is abandoning the very valuable critical faculty of the mind. The point is - is the criticism valid or not and do you have any answers to pertinent questions ? Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
I am perfectly capable of distinguishing between questions of an open and closed type. I can decide myself whether to answer them or not. For me, it is always an equation of effect: will my input be equalled or exceeded by the output. Selfish, of course. But environmentally friendly.
The valuable critical faculty that you talk about is not 'let me stop you there, sonny'. The VCF requires that you actually study the material presented - as you so often admonish others to do with your own arguments. The open mind asks 'can the answers be pertinent?' You can't be me, I'm taken
Oh, I agree that science and art can be brought together.
Then why say that doing so is "difficult" ?
I am perfectly capable of distinguishing between questions of an open and closed type.
One's which seem to you to be open or closed - it's all a matter of perception, as you would say :-)
I can decide myself whether to answer them or not. For me, it is always an equation of effect: will my input be equalled or exceeded by the output. Selfish, of course. But environmentally friendly.
Fair enough.
The valuable critical faculty that you talk about is not 'let me stop you there, sonny'. The VCF requires that you actually study the material presented - as you so often admonish others to do with your own arguments.
You will notice that I haven't made any judgments so far about the material presented - and your point: "will my input be equalled or exceeded by the output." is relevant when deciding whether to study it.
The open mind asks 'can the answers be pertinent?'
But the open mind does not unquestioningly accept everything, it just doesn't dismiss things out of hand. It's quite consistent with having an open mind to examine things critically, accepting them if they seem valid, rejecting them if they don't. So the suggestions by ARGeezer and you that those of us who raise critical questions should just stay away from this kind of material, would seem to be encouraging us to have closed minds and we could be blamed for refusing to even consider such material. The mere fact that some of us ask questions and make some criticisms of some aspects of the material presented is just the kind of healthy debate which ought to go on here - not just uncritical approval. Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
