View Single Post
Old 01-19-2009, 11:43 AM   #44 (permalink)
tisonlyi
Nothing
 
tisonlyi's Avatar
 
I think rb is headed in the direction i've been thinking toward the.

A lot of the time, trying to describe ourselves, the universe, our feelings and experiences, we forget that we're very much limited by the bounds of our own language. Nouns as discrete elements of the universe exist in our language, as a good shorthand on what surrounds us, but does "glass" really represent and describe what we think it does, what is really out there?(whichever definition of the noun you care to take)

There is no such thing, even when viewed from a human standpoint, as a fixed object. Everything is in flux, changing, interacting with everything else, constantly:

Quote:
The Cool Web

Children are dumb to say how hot the day is,
How hot the scent is of the summer rose,
How dreadful the black wastes of evening sky,
How dreadful the tall soldiers drumming by,

But we have speech, to chill the angry day,
And speech, to dull the roses's cruel scent,
We spell away the overhanging night,
We spell away the soldiers and the fright.

There's a cool web of language winds us in,
Retreat from too much joy or too much fear:
We grow sea-green at last and coldly die
In brininess and volubility.

But if we let our tongues lose self-possession,
Throwing off language and its watery clasp
Before our death, instead of when death comes,
Facing the wide glare of the children's day,
Facing the rose, the dark sky and the drums,
We shall go mad, no doubt, and die that way.

-- Robert Graves
I think there's a tendency to mistake reality for our senses and capacity to describe what we sense. Reality is reality, our senses are information about reality, not reality itself and language is an abstraction of that information.

Meta-meta-reality?

What does this have to do with science and religion?

I think science are manners in which we try to apply our languages and linguistic systems of thought (yes, even mathematics is a language of sorts) to the events we see (sense) around us, so that they 'make sense' within our own sphere of language.

Nouns and verbs, matter and energy.

Religions are the predecessors of science in that they are narrative creating mechanisms. Narratives that help us understand where we are. With religion you need look only to the authority and culture as proof, with science, measurements and predictions..

Religion is absolute truth, science is absolute truth until the next bit of evidence refines the narrative/understanding or blows it away. Both are, for most people and to a significant degree, limited to the senses and the language of that person, people or culture. Even our imagination and visualisations are based on our sense experiences to a degree...

English and German are very picky (in a sense) modern languages filled with prepositions, which I think naturally lends them to technical pursuits, precision and absolutism. I don't see it as any surprise that both science and protestantism found significant homes in the western, Christian world in countries dominated by those languages.

I think much of the problems in the world as we find it now has a lot to do with the contradiction between the emergent universe, species and societies we find ourselves in, and our capacity to tie those concepts down in our clumpy languages.

So the way I see it goes like this:

Religion (relic of the ancient narrative device):

God, man, creation, good, bad. Nice and clumpy.

19th Century Science:

Mechanical universe, indivisible atoms, neatly divided species, societies classified and consistent, etc

21st Century Science:

Relativistic universe, quantum particles and effects, blurry divisions of genetics, societies without well-defined rules or groups, etc...

Understanding might be stretching the limits of our capacity to describe the understood, or at least grasped/pointed at...

I've really no idea where i was going with this, but now i've wrote it, i'm pressing submit, dammit.
__________________
"I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place." - Winston Churchill, 1937 --{ORLY?}--
tisonlyi is offline  
 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360