« Death can't be imagined | Main | Small things can be the biggest »

October 29, 2008

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

This argument doesn't really hold water with me anymore.
Science is, by definition and in practice, limited to that which can be conceptualized. And it seems to me our ability to conceptualize is not terribly strong. Try to conceive of a Mobius strip. Or the Moment of Change. Or Time.
Mostly we have to build up our concepts, slowly. Consider learning something new, like playing tennis. First you learn the grip. Then a few swings, etc. Then you "chunk" them up. The grip, the swings, become second nature, in other words we forget the concept and just go with the action. Eventually if we persist and become good at it we forget most of the concepts and let the body do it's work. Being "in the zone."
To me, this shows a tremendous weakness in our innate ability to conceptualize. We can do it, but in the end it's not what we rely on anyhow.

Most honest religions have at their core the idea of identifying with Awareness (consciousness) instead of the mind and it's conceptualizations. This frees the practitioner from the limitations of the mind and brings one directly into the Zone, if done successfully.
Not to say Sarah Palin has made this leap. I don't know much about her, (being Canadian) but the argument that she's intellectually inferior is not sufficient to dismiss her abilities.

David, I'd say that science is more about the ability to observe and describe, not conceptualize. You imply that science is about abstractions. To some extent that's true (quantum phenomena can't be observed), but also not -- because the effects of unobserved entities can be observed (as in high energy particle experiments).

"Being in the flow" can be seen and described by outsiders. You can see a dancer or an athlete performing, and compare their "in the flow" actions with "regular" actions. So I think you're exaggerating the non-describability of the intuitive side of life.

If someone is enlightened, if they've merged with "the flow," this should be evident. Otherwise, it really is just a concept. A name has been given to them -- "enlightened person"-- but nobody can tell them apart from someone unenlightened. This is truly conceptual, not science.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Welcome


  • Welcome to the Church of the Churchless. If this is your first visit, click on "About this site--start here" in the Categories section below.
  • HinesSight
    Visit my other weblog, HinesSight, for a broader view of what's happening in the world of your Church unpastor, his wife, and dog.
  • BrianHines.com
    Take a look at my web site, which contains information about a subject of great interest to me: me.
  • Twitter with me
    Join Twitter and follow my tweets about whatever.
  • I Hate Church of the Churchless
    Can't stand this blog? Believe the guy behind it is an idiot? Rant away on our anti-site.