Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Science vs. Spirituality.

Science vs. Spirituality.
April 10, 2012, 05:21:16 PM
Science appears, on the face of it, to be a good thing.
But it is not a replacement for spirituality.

Science takes a thing, manipulates it, 'understands' it, and exploits it.
This process, far more often than not, results in the destruction of whatever science is applied to.
Whereas spirituality appreciates a thing, for what that thing is, perceives it, makes use of it, while not destroying it.

Science seeks always to 'understand'. And of what use is 'understanding'?
Once labeled, known, put in a box and organized, what is that thing, then?
It's life, its magic, its uniqueness, has been taken from it, and it is, henceforth, taken for granted.
Used up.

Spirituality makes use of.
Science uses up.
The former reveres, appreciates, and benefits from.
The latter demeans, diminishes, and destroys.


Re: Science vs. Spirituality.
April 10, 2012, 05:54:00 PM
Science is a tool for tools.

Re: Science vs. Spirituality.
April 10, 2012, 05:56:21 PM
It is a tool, true. For fools? Sometimes.
Any tool is useful when the task at hand calls for that particular tool.
Having only one tool, somewhat hinders the results achieved.

Re: Science vs. Spirituality.
April 10, 2012, 06:30:55 PM
I am willing to say something that most scientists will never say, let alone admit to themselves:

Scientists are losers.

They are losers, not only in the more conventional sense of the word, but in a much more generic way...

1. Scientists are losers first and foremost because most of them are functionally autistic.

2. There is a huge gap between their achievements (or lack thereof) and their bloated and fragile egos.

3. They spend inordinate amounts of time and effort in zero-sum behaviors.

4. They preach SWPL ideals and fairness, but do not practice them in their own lives.

5. They suffer from the delusion of knowledge.

http://www.inmalafide.com/blog/2012/04/10/scientists-are-losers/

Re: Science vs. Spirituality.
April 10, 2012, 06:34:40 PM
Hehe :) You are right.
Don't tell anybody.

Re: Science vs. Spirituality.
April 10, 2012, 06:40:14 PM
Why sling poo unprovoked?

NHA

Re: Science vs. Spirituality.
April 10, 2012, 07:14:06 PM
Lets be realistic here. If were gonna start talking about useless sperglord professions Philosopher has gotta be pretty close to the top.


Re: Science vs. Spirituality.
April 10, 2012, 07:21:55 PM
What is your definition of 'Philosopher'?
How is it useless?
If its goal is to whine about the state of mankind, then I agree: it is useless.
If, however, the philosopher's philosophy makes of him a uber-man, it would seem rather useful.

Re: Science vs. Spirituality.
April 10, 2012, 07:22:22 PM


[I've taken a shine to posting pictures along with posts. I assume this is permissible, as long as they aren't too large.]

Science, like spirituality, has its extremes. Many dedicated "spiritual" folk can suffer from similar delusions of knowledge and self-importance. Rarely is it to the same extent - no doubt, because spirituality/religion doesn't possess the same institutional backing that science now does - but it's worth mentioning.  Both information from "science" and scientific inquiry can be helpful, but don't let these things be your only guides in life. Knowledge and wisdom should coexist. When enterprising self-interest takes a backseat to greater purpose, we get high art.

Re: Science vs. Spirituality.
April 10, 2012, 07:24:52 PM
Well observed. Well stated. Well contributed. Well done.
More like this.

Re: Science vs. Spirituality.
April 10, 2012, 08:01:58 PM
Science tells us that spirituality evolved in humans to add coherence and stability to our species which is pulled in every which direction by a flawed rational mind and complex emotions deriving from the social nature of the species. There is no conflict unless we artificially create them. At present, most spiritual people do not realize they are creating this conflict. This is because we live in a era where science is in its infancy and we're still stuck to pre-science spiritual traditions which are now inherently flawed and obsolete in most forms due to the new found understanding and self awareness brought to us by science.

Whenever humanity 3.0 is eventually reached, the two will be resolved and there will be no conflict. This will be at a time when we do not try and force bronze age spirituality on information age humans.

You'll find you have a lot more time on your hands to do spiritual activities if you didn't spend hours obsessing over scientists as if they are some evil Satanic conspiracy. Some science ideas are flawed and motivated by other interests, and some scientists are genuine, but to say scientists are all losers is the same as me saying :

People on the internet on forums are losers because :

1. they cry about scientists and science being losers even though they're bitching on a medium brought to us only by science.

2. they complain about the achievements of scientists when they're busy online fagging off with nothing to show but a shitty personality.

3. they suffer from delusion of knowledge.

4. they spend inordinate amounts of time and effort in zero-sum behaviors(like forming a dichtomy between science and spirituality where science wins, spirituality loses or vice versa)

5. they smell incredibly bad and speak other motherfucker's names out of context, then try to delete the comment before gettin' sighted and called out anyway.

NHA

Re: Science vs. Spirituality.
April 10, 2012, 08:12:50 PM
What is your definition of 'Philosopher'?
How is it useless?
If its goal is to whine about the state of mankind, then I agree: it is useless.
If, however, the philosopher's philosophy makes of him a uber-man, it would seem rather useful.

In most cases it seems to create people who fancy themselves as ubermensch rather than actually creating them.

Quote
I would like to suggest that our minds are swamped by too much study and by too much matter just as plants are swamped by too much water or lamps by too much oil; that our minds, held fast and encumbered by so many diverse preoccupations, may well lose the means of struggling free, remaining bowed and bent under the load; except that it is quite otherwise: the more our souls are filled, the more they expand; examples drawn from far-off times show, on the contrary, that great soldiers ad statesmen were also great scholars. (de Montaigne)

I think it better to say that the evil arises from their tackling the sciences in the wrong manner and that, from the way we have been taught, it is no wonder that neither master nor pupils become more able, even though they do know more. In truth the care and fees of our parents aim only at furnishing our heads with knowledge: nobody talks about judgement or virtue. When someone passes by, try exclaiming, ‘Oh, what a learned man!’ Then, when another does, ‘Oh, what a good man!’ Our people will not fail to turn their gaze respectfully towards the first. There ought to be a third man crying, ‘Oh, what blockheads!' (de Montaigne)

We readily inquire, ‘Does he know Greek or Latin?’ ‘Can he write poetry and prose?’ But what matters most is what we put last: ‘Has he become better and wiser?’ We ought to find out not who understands most but who understands best. We work merely to fill the memory, leaving the understanding and the sense of right and wrong empty. Just as birds sometimes go in search of grain, carrying it in their beaks without tasting it to stuff it down the beaks of their young, so too do our schoolmasters go foraging for learning in their books and merely lodge it on the tip of their lips, only to spew it out and scatter it on the wind. (de Montaigne)

Their pupils and their little charges are not nourished and fed by what they learn: the learning is passed from hand to hand with only one end in view: to show it off, to put into our accounts to entertain others with it, as though it were merely counters, useful for totting up and producing statements, but having no other use or currency. ‘Apud alios loqui didicerunt, non ipsi secum’ [They have learned how to talk with others, not with themselves] (de Montaigne)

Whenever I ask a certain acquaintance of mine to tell me what he knows about anything, he wants to show me a book: he would not venture to tell me that he has scabs on his arse without studying his lexicon to find out the meaning of scab and arse.
All we do is to look after the opinions and learning of others: we ought to make them our own. We closely resemble a man who, needing a fire, goes next door to get a light, finds a great big blaze there and stays to warm himself, forgetting to take a brand back home. What use is it to us to have a belly full of meat if we do not digest it, if we do not transmute it into ourselves, if it does not make us grow in size and strength? (de Montaigne)

If our souls do not move with a better motion and if we do not have a healthier judgement, then I would just as soon that our pupil should spend his time playing tennis: at least his body would become more agile. But just look at him after he has spent some fifteen or sixteen years studying: nothing could be more unsuited for employment. The only improvement you can see is that his Latin and Greek have made him more conceited and more arrogant than when he left home. He ought to have brought back a fuller soul: he brings back a swollen one; instead of making it weightier he has merely blown wind into it. (de Montaigne)

And I loathe people who find it harder to put up with a gown askew than with a soul askew and who judge a man by his bow, his bearing and his boots. (de Montaigne)

Learning is a good medicine: but no medicine is powerful enough to preserve itself from taint and corruption independently of defects in the jar that it is kept in. One man sees clearly but does not see straight: consequently he sees what is good but fails to follow it; he sees knowledge and does not use it. (de Montaigne)

.. since it was true that study, even when done properly, can only teach us what wisdom, right conduct and determination consist in, they wanted to put their children directly in touch with actual cases, teaching them not by hearsay but by actively assaying them, vigorously molding and forming them not merely by word and precept but chiefly by deeds and examples, so that wisdom should not be something which the soul knows but the soul’s very essence and temperament, not something acquired but a natural property. (de Montaigne)

But in truth I know nothing about education except this: that the greatest and the most important difficulty known to human learning seems to lie in that area which treats how to bring up children and how to educate them. (de Montaigne)

Socrates and then Archesilaus used to make their pupils speak first; they spoke afterwards. ‘Obest plerumque iss discere volunt authoritas eorum qui docent.’ [For those who want to learn, the obstacle can often be the authority of those who teach] (de Montaigne)

Those who follow our French practice and undertake to act as schoolmaster for several minds diverse in kind and capacity, using the same teaching and the same degree of guidance for them all, not surprisingly can scarcely find in a whole tribe of children more than one or two who bear fruit from their education.
Let the tutor not merely require a verbal account of what the boy has been taught but the meaning and substance of it: let him judge how the boy has profited from it not from the evidence of his memory but from that of his life. Let him take what the boy has just learned and make him show him dozens of different aspects of it and then apply it to just as many different subjects, in order to find out whether he has really grasped it and made it part of himself, judging the boy’s progress by what Plato taught about education. Spewing food up exactly as you have swallows it is evidence of a failure to digest and assimilate it; the stomach has not done its job if, during concoction, it fails to change the substance and the form of what it is given. (de Montaigne)

The profit we possess after study is to have become better and wiser. (de Montaigne)

Nor is it enough to toughen up his soul; you must also toughen up his muscles. (de Montaigne)

Teach him a certain refinement in sorting out and selecting his arguments, with an affection for relevance and so for brevity. Above all let him be taught to throw down his arms and surrender to truth as soon as he perceives it, whether the truth is born at his rival’s doing or within himself from some change in his ideas. (de Montaigne)

As for our pupils talk, let his virtue and his sense of right and wrong shine through it and have no guide but reason. Make him understand that confessing an error which he discovers in his own argument even when he alone has noticed it is an act of justice and integrity, which are the main qualities he pursues; stubbornness and rancour are vulgar qualities, visible in common souls whereas to think again, to change one’s mind and to give up a bad case on the heat of the argument are rare qualities showing strength and wisdom. (de Montaigne)

In his commerce with men I mean him to include- and that principally- those who live only in the memory of books. By means of history he will frequent those great souls of former years. If you want it to be so, history can be a waste of time; it can also be, if you want it to be so, a study bearing fruit beyond price. (de Montaigne)

The first lessons with which we should irrigate his mind should be those which teach him to know himself, and to know how to die … and to live. (de Montaigne)

Since philosophy is the art which teaches us how to live, and since children need to learn it as much as we do at other ages, why do we not instruct them in it? (de Montaigne)

Any time and any place can be used to study: his room, a garden, is table, his bed; when alone or in company; morning and evening. His chief study will be Philosophy, that Former of good judgement and character who is privileged to be concerned with everything.
(de Montaigne)

For among other things he had been counseled to bring me to love knowledge and duty by my own choice, without forcing my will, and to educate my soul entirely through gentleness and freedom. (de Montaigne)

Learning must not only lodge with us: we must marry her. (de Montaigne)

And yes i realize the text is mocking me for having to use the text haha.

Re: Science vs. Spirituality.
April 10, 2012, 09:40:17 PM
This is because we live in a era where science is in its infancy and we're still stuck to pre-science spiritual traditions which are now inherently flawed and obsolete in most forms due to the new found understanding and self awareness brought to us by science.

That's backwards.  It is new enhancements that are untested and therefore more prone to flaws.  New enhancements are essentially being given trial runs to see if they aren't, in fact, obsolete.  The "old" enhancements have already stood the test of time and have survived because they were useful.  They are tried and true and more reliable.  In 1000 years many aspects of science might be obsolete because they have not proven useful for all we know.

When lightning comes crashing out of the sky, whether it was caused by charged particles in the atmosphere and magnetism or whether it was cause by Thor battling Giants in the clouds is irrelevant insofar as lighting come crashing out of the sky either way.  All that matters is how we relate to reality, not how "accurately" we can describe it.

NHA

Re: Science vs. Spirituality.
April 10, 2012, 10:03:24 PM
Yea sure, until someone makes a lightning gun. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/26/ionatron_still_going/

Last i checked praying to Thor does't actually cause him to smite people for you. Would be cool if it did though.

Re: Science vs. Spirituality.
April 10, 2012, 10:09:19 PM
Will this gun also be able to fertilize the soil?