[FoRK] Re: Please Help

[Lion Kimbro]

On Dec 4, 2007 1:20 PM, Devon Jones <soulcatcher at evilsoft.org> wrote:
> Lion Kimbro wrote:
> >   These people read natural history as sacred scripture, and
> >   make it their duty to understand the story of wherever they
> >   live.
> >
> Now see, this is somewhat problematic, given that a naturalistic view is
> diametrically opposed to the concept of something being unquestionable
> (which is my read of the word "sacred").  The point of a naturalistic
> view point is (IMHO) A) that "I Don't Know" is far more valid then
> making something up and B) there is probably always a more accurate way
> of looking at things, so nothing is beyond questioning.

  Oh!

  Well, ...

  We just have different meanings of the word "sacred," then.

  Michael Dowd and Connie Barlow (two of the people I talk with)
  made a list of places that they consider "sacred."

  One of those places was Charles Darwin's **house.**
  More specifically, the path he used to walk on, around the garden,
  when he was thinking.

  Michael & Connie trace the path, and advocate it as a
  pilgrimage that other people should follow in.

  But "unquestionable?!"

  Certainly not.


  A) that "I Don't Know" is far more valid then
      making something up

  -- here's the thing:

  In the vast majority of our life, we have to "make something up."

  A woman has 3 suitors, which does she choose?
  She can't wait around for scientists to publish the papers and
  come to the conclusion for her.


  B) there is probably always a more accurate way
 of looking at things, so nothing is beyond questioning.

  Exactly:  Which is why, very prominantly,
  "The Great Story is the story of the changing story."

  It's like, ...  Right there -- Point #1:

    http://thegreatstory.org/what_is.html


> >   They have discussions about, "What should we hold
> >   sacred, if anything?"
> >
> What does one mean by sacred? if one means an unquestionable axiom then
> I would say nothing should be held sacred, if one means ideals that one
> wants to aspire to, there there is a lot to hold sacred.

  That's an excellent question;  The kind of question
  they like to chew on and talk about.

  I don't know how they would answer, but it certainly wouldn't
  mean "unquestionable."

  I sometimes feel something of the sacred, when I am by
  SIX, the Seattle Internet Exchange.

  People who don't share "my story," (completely naturalistic,)
  about the Singularity, about technology, about people
  communicating online, learning, teaching, and so on --
  might not feel it.

  But I do.

  I'm sharing my story.


>  Perception is
> inherently flawed, so for me, the search for the ability to cancel out
> as much of the error of human perception through the use of increasingly
> clever tests of reality is probably the highest form of progress. That
> ideal could be interpreted as "sacred", but it is not axiomatic.

  OK.  Agreed.


> >   I think all of us have  "magical, wishful thinking."  We
> >   fall in love with other people, right?
> >
> Presumably there is a naturalistic cause to people falling in love. are
> you opining that you prefer to view that as magic, even if you recognize
> there is at some level a nuts and bolts explanation to it?

  Yes;  Oxytocin, even.

  It's **magical** oxytocin!

  (A joke!  A joke!  Like "mystical complexity!"
   Don't look at me funny!  It's just "levity"!)

  I think that falling in love is sacred, and the sacredness can be
  communicated through:

  * honoring the deep history of "falling in love"
    -- how it evolved, through millenia
  * honoring the social dimension(s) of "falling in love"
    -- how love can serve society,
      -- even if it is serving society by *challenging* society
  * honoring the brain mechanics of "falling in love"
    -- understanding oxytocin
    -- understanding whatever it is that scientists come to
       discover about it
  * honoring the forms of "falling in love"
    -- the symbols of feminine grace
    -- the symbols of masculine power
  * honoring the life-timeline-dimension of "falling in love"
    -- how it impacts our lives, and so on
  * honoring the role of chance (the mystery)
    -- the unpredictability in our life
    -- the myriad factors that go into selection
  * honoring the subjective experience of "falling in love"
    -- how it feels, what it "looks like" from the inside

  ...and so on.

  Through this, we can understand the sacred in "falling in love."

  It's my/our belief that human beings are sacred, and understanding
  all of these things (listed above) is understanding the sacred,
  seeing it more deeply.


> I would think this would always be a retreating position though, sort of
> a "God of the Gaps" view of magic, because once there is an
> understandable and thorough explanation for something is it still magical?

  Well, ... ...why not?

  Psychological reality is where "the sacred" lives.

  "Mystery" is just one component;  Love and care are there as well.

  People were disappointed at first, when they learned that "falling
  in love" is due to chemicals, like oxytocin.

  But is the mystery gone from falling in love really gone?

  I will put my right hand on Halliday, Resnick, and Krane, and
  attest, "It does not."

  I still find the process mysterious, even though I know something
  of the mechanics.  All the science in the world won't tell you who
  you're destined to fall in love with, 5 years down the line. (*)

  It's not about "whether we know or don't know."

  It's about acknowledging and figuring out what to do with our
  psychological lives, in a way that works with science,
  with our own hearts, with our society, with the Earth, (the
  environment,) that works with reality.


  Hope this helps explain,
    Lion


  (*) If science could tell people who they're bound to fall
     in love with, the fortune telling industry will go bankrupt.
     So, anti-magical-thinking scientists -- ... move, move, move!