tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11646250.post111638012372123024..comments2023-11-05T02:34:38.816-08:00Comments on The Ape Man: Choose Between Reality and MadnessAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13829102073305209917noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11646250.post-1116425966179219082005-05-18T07:19:00.000-07:002005-05-18T07:19:00.000-07:00OK, well, this is interesting. I think now I can ...OK, well, this is interesting. I think now I can slice this a little finer than you have. <BR/><BR/>"Belief," that is, coalesced opinion, is not the same thing as intuitive knowledge, i.e. "street smarts" or "The Zone." The two are distinct. Also separate are the postulates that we accept as a basis for theoretical investigation. These are three distinct phenomena that we should not conflate. <BR/><BR/>Euclid's definition of parallel lines is still useful as a postulate, despite having been superseded in certain areas of investigation. Ditto Newton's principles, the ideal gas law, etc. When a postulate becomes a belief, that is, something that is assumed to be true rather than something that is simply assumed, it becomes a hindrance to understanding.<BR/><BR/>Though intuitive knowledge (and the "organs" of perception used to detect it) has been studied in great detail for many centuries, particularly in some of the countries which we are now gleefully destroying, it is only very recently in the West that this idea has become respectable. The idea was one that pursuers of "Artificial Intelligence" ran up against, and found occasion to write extensively about. <BR/><BR/>Western philosophers call intuitive knowledge "qualia," though humorously, their efforts to hammer the idea of intuitive knowledge into the existing framework of their beliefs about how the universe is perceived has rendered most of their expositions on the subject largely incoherent.<BR/><BR/>Certain highly respected thinkers of the East have explained the phenomenon much more clearly. One of them, an Aghan who died in 1996, even did so in English. His name was Idries Shah, for anyone who is interested in what he had to say about this and many other subjects.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13829102073305209917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11646250.post-1116420240884608342005-05-18T05:44:00.000-07:002005-05-18T05:44:00.000-07:00"We all have beliefs. We cling to them. Do we need..."We all have beliefs. We cling to them. Do we need them?"<BR/><BR/>Yup. For most of us they are the fundamental foundation of what we call "principals". They are also what we tend to describe as "street smarts", "The Zone", or in science we call them "postulates". Jefferson called them truths to be held self evident. Euclid held that parallel lines never intersect and served the world quite well for several hundred years. However, we should always question our beliefs, if only to greater understand exactly what they are. And in a lead up to war we should assuredly question our beliefs. Questioning beliefs however amongst those selling them is rarely encouraged.<BR/><BR/>Furthermore, beliefs tend to be ours alone, and we should suffer the consequences alone. When involving in governance, we should not deal in belief, but in demonstrable, defendable, arguments. It's called "making your case" and this paricular administration has shown a particular tendency to not wanting to have to "make their case", in court or in public. Our faith can lead us to seek to make cases for their conclusions, but they should not BE the basis of our arguments. And in choosing leaders, it is a real mistake to choose them based upon "shared beliefs". For predominately what you will probably share is your own short comings. Picking folks who share your arguments is probably a better guide, for you AND them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com