.
Scientists Jeaslously Intruding Upon Priests, Lawyers, Economists, and Artists:
.
.
For my taste, the author of this video too narrowly conceptualizes Causality by assuming causality must be based in entirely measurable and dumb substance. The video also too narrowly conceptualizes Will, by assuming it must be causally independently of synchronization with the cosmos --- as if free will must be limited to the perimeter of a brain case or a body of skin.
.
If every thing and every quality were entirely reducible to quantifications of sets within sets, then the Pythagorists would be correct, that all is math. However, direct intuition indicates there may (or must?) abide at least one quality or aspect that constitutes more than dumb math --- else math would function only upon the territory of math, with subsets of formulas functioning upon formulas, blueprints upon blueprints, and maps upon maps. Indeed, even geometrical forms of genes may then take on mutually exclusive and exhaustive traits of selfishness, as in "the selfish gene" (or maybe even "the selfish number"). Lol! Thus, the physical territory would consist of no underlying reality, apart from numbers functioning upon numbers. That is, physical reality would be illusion, not in itself having capacity to support or signify causal feedback (much less capacity to support evolution that weighs physical feedback against otherwise meaningless chaos in order eventually to produce consciousness of identity and self). Yet, a conscious being will generally perceive, know, and communicate that such capacity abides! Thus, some innate quality of beingness avails capacity for the interfunctioning of more than mere dumb numbers, blueprints, and maps. Some quality that is coextensive with physics or spirituality signifies capacity for appreciating and availing communication of meaningfulness beyond mere random juxtoposition of numbers, formulas, genes, and blueprints. That quality is the immeasurable but intuited "Elvis" --- that has not "left the building."
.
Mere numbers, formulas, and blueprints for formulas do not "appreciate one another" in order to effect relational changes among themselves. If they did, they would not be mere numbers, formulas, and blueprints for formulas. Rather, they would qualitatively signify much more. They would signify entangled involvement with some "appreciative and qualitative observer," beyond the quantitative, that may or must avail capacity for collapsing and interfacing appreciation, interpretion, and communication with interfunctionings among quantitatives.
.
For those who think not, let the pure quantitavists --- the ones who believe that even our laws, economies, entertainments, music, and arts can (and should?) be reduced entirely to quantitatives --- revel us with their wisdom concerning how we should best manage without reference or respect for such heretofore believed to be qualitative concepts as will, freedom, merit, beauty, music, purposefulness, or self actualization. Let the scientists who know best how the entire quantification of everything should be pursued fill their wisdom into our courtrooms, traderooms, and theaters, and thus "enrich" our lives by ridiculing or banning regard for any intuition, appreciation, or metaphysical interface with the qualitative. Yes, let these elites "progress" our civilization. Well, not so fast! After all, if spiritualists are properly banned from the science class, why should scientists monopolize the morality class? Have they some special logic for adducing "ought" from "is"? If religion too often intrudes beyond its proper domain, should reasonings and treatises on morality now be restricted to peer review by scientists? Who's being too greedy now?
.
No comments:
Post a Comment