From: ian glendinning (psybertron@gmail.com)
Date: Mon Apr 25 2005 - 05:15:04 BST
Ant, you highlight DMB's words .." ... [The suggestion that] science simply has NOTHING to say aboutthese 'supernatural' events because they are just too different is waytoo convenient. It has the effect of making religious immune tophilosophical inspection ... "
I say I completely agree.(In fact it's a statement of my Catch-22)Why does the debate always seem to be about all or nothing.
Ant, in your SOMist quote of mine above, you had the word "largely".My point was that is science was going to pronounce on art, it hadbetter be careful how it does it, not that it was exempt from doingit. As you point out there are plenty of aspects that could bescientifically analysed, even tested by scientific method (though itwas the latter that I suggested would be missing the point)
My problem, as may becoming apparent, is the inorganic / physical /empirical / objective straightjacket into which science let's itselfget strapped.
If science using "scientific method" wants to test and analyse aspectsof a work of art, then fine. It is only ever going to concludesomething about its objective / empirical aspects. Nice work if youcan get it, but pointless.
If science wants to talk about the aethetics, values, qualities,truths, realities beyond SOMism in a human creation (artistic orotherwise) it had better remember to use more than scientific method.Mass / popular science keeps falling for it's own trap though, cosit's the easy way out - too convenient as DMB puts it. The harder, buthigher quality, path is to explain how those human values arise inconsciousness.
A difficult area, but not immune from scientific explanation. In factmy contention is that even though scientific explanation is clearlyincomplete and inadequate here, it is nevertheless the best "quality"of explanation available.
(I may in fact go further one day, and say that science provides notonly the best explanation, but, since there is no metaphysics, physicsis the only fundamental basis of explanation in any area of the realworld ... too soon to claim that, but I suspect it to be true.)
Ian.
On 4/25/05, Ant McWatt <antmcwatt@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:> Scott Roberts stated April 18th:> > >The doctrine of transubstantiation does not declare> >that something that science can measure has been changed. If you are going> >to say that there is conflict because science cannot detect Christ in the> >bread and wine, then you would have to say that art and science are in> >conflict because science cannot detect the beauty of a painting.> > Scott,> > Firstly, I thought David B's post was interesting especially with its> observation that the act of eating can be regarded as a metaphor for the> dissolution of the self. As David states, at a spiritual level the Mass is> similar to the peyote ritual described in LILA. The peyote buttons 'are> seen as the flesh of mother earth in a way that is similar to the way the> communion wafer is seen as the flesh of the son of God. In both cases, one> snacks on the divine meat and is transformed by it.' No doubt there are> also shades here of Owen Barfield's notion of 'pa
rticipation' where a> subject is (re-)integrated with a 'Quality saturated' natural world.> > Secondly, as Ian G stated (in a kind of SOM type of way!), a person could> state something scientific about the inorganic properties of the art work> but this would be missing the point of both art and science. Moreover, the> assessment of the beauty of a painting is largely outside the remit of> science though the Golden Mean (a particular ratio which epitomises a> certain harmony) can point towards paintings which are beautiful and I> suppose a certain amount of scientific knowledge can also help the artistic> process as regarding mixing colours, perspective etc.> > Thirdly, as far as transubstantiation is concerned, the priest in a Roman> Catholic Church after blessing the bread and wine, doesn't qualify, for> instance, the statement "this bread is the body of Christ" with the words> "but only in the sense of a being a non-scientifically known substance". He> simply states "this bread is the body of Chri!
st". It
is publicly given as a> literal truth in the Catholic mass. As such, the doctrine of> transubstantiation does imply that something that chemistry can measure in> the bread has been changed and, in consequence, this is one clear example> where 'science and contemporary, non-fundamentalist theism are in conflict.'> > Similar to the gumption trap of conservative ideology, I think the attempt> to give organised religion an intellectual credibility it lacks only retards> evolution especially as an improved value system such as the MOQ could> successfully plug the vacuum that would occur if all these low quality value> systems disappeared tomorrow. (Otherwise, the world be left with just> atheists, communists and liberal relativists and we couldn't allow that,> could we?)> > Best wishes,> > Anthony.> > "I would like to suggest that the resulting idea… that science simply has> nothing to say about these 'supernatural' events because they are just too> different is way too convenient. It has the effect of making
religious> immune to philosophical inspection, to intellectual scrutiny. It has a way> of putting up a wall for the purpose of protecting dogmas from criticism.> And this, my friends, is pure bullshit. It expresses a certain disrespect> for intellectual values, a wilful disregard for the facts of the matter and> otherwise shows a willingness to hide from the truth. This is a species of> bullshit - and I mean that in the philosophical sense of the word." (David> Buchanan, April 24th 2005)> > _________________________________________________________________> It's fast, it's easy and it's free. Get MSN Messenger today!> http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger> > > MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org> Mail Archives:> Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/> Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net> > To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html> >
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Apr 25 2005 - 05:18:41 BST