posted 01-01-2001 11:54 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by psichick:
First of all, you dismissed the hunches and instincts I spoke of WITHOUT ANY GOOD ARGUMENT!

---

I guess you weren't paying attention or you refuse to believe that hunches and instincts are not reliable, and therefore do not sufficiently 'pay off' in the real world.

What you are doing is associating perceived cause/effect relationships as direct interactions, when there is no proof otherwise--- just your perception that tries to link the two. You can't see this from where you are if you are constantly trying to make spiritual connections between things. Your mind is on over-drive looking for perceived connections between all things.

These connections are solely perception-based. That's the good reason why I dismiss them. You wouldn't know this because you desperately want to believe it.

posted 01-01-2001 11:55 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by khouriana:
The problem I have with roman, aside from his snide manner, is that LOGICALLY, if he is trying to "enlighten" us, or change our perceptions, then he is essentially in the same position as Madison Avenue: he needs to convince us, to sell us.

---

Khouriana,

I meant to respond to you yesterday, but got sidetracked by the theory.

I just want to say that roman doesn't even have to sell us. The work has already been done. Clearheaded scientists have sold science to most of the world.

That's why Science and most of the world's religions and spirituals coexist peacefully. (Sure there are still some people who reject Darwin for Genesis or the Mahabarata, but they live on the margins of progressive society.)

Both sides largely respect the other's boundares. The problem really is that roman isn't representing Science as the scientists represent it. He is representing his own personal system of materialism, not Science. And though some scientists may still have contempt for non-rational spirituality, they at least recognize their standards have no bearing on spiritual issues. Most won't try to impose their view on non-scientific audiences.

And Tommy,

posted 01-01-2001 12:20 PM            

Your experience may have well existed, but you are still the victim of your emotions. In the same way, you want to seek meaning and answers for things that otherwise have no logical grounds in reality, so you search for ways to explain what happens. These are also perceived cause/effect relationships.

I don't deny what you truly believe, only the reasons why you believe them. Like I've told many others on here, I've had my fair share of so-called 'amazing' experiences in my lifetime. Some people have insisted beyond a doubt that I am personally here for special reasons because of my situations. And you know what? I could try to make myself believe those sorts of things. I could fill myself with all sorts of spiritual claims for existence and survival against the odds -- but guess why I don't? Because it comes down to belief - a perception that these things are true- not facts, not evidence, and not undeniable proof.

posted 01-01-2001 12:49 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by roman74:
The reason why science doesn't go into spirituality is because it is all perceptions - subjective emotions, not facts. This is how materialism separates and identifies the two worlds.

Spirituality is perceived cause/effect relationships based on emotional needs for security and purpose. These aren't tangible things. They are irrational and illogical, and that's why scientists largely dismiss these kinds of beliefs as universal tools for understanding how the world works.

---

Responding to roman's point one:

You keep using the terms "Science" and "Materialism" as if they were interchangeable. In a scientific arena, they are not. Vanguard scientists stopped posing materialist arguments a hundred years ago when they realized that many conceptualizations in Science have no physical correlation -- that they are purely conceptual -- and when they realized the physical world was much more than just materiality. The rest of the scientific community followed by mid-century. Hence, what you say about Materialsism is true. What you say about Science is misconstrued.

Because of this, Scientists do not make statements about perception's relationship to spirituality. Some neuro-scientists do so in a highly controversial forum, but they have by and large not been accepted by the Scientific community precisely because they are recognized as making claims that cannot be substantiated by Science. In other words, these neuroscientists (who comprise a small bunch) are crossing the line that scientists aren't supposed to cross.

roman's point two:

This is your credo, not that of science. I do not argue with your point of view because I recognize that such things can't be proven, hence I believe to each his own on such matters.

I only argue with you when you try to represent this view as being that established by Science, when it is not. I am arguing that you are misrepresenting Science, not that your view is wrong and mine is right.

My view is that no one knows the basis of spirituality, hence all are valid as an individual approach.

posted 01-01-2001 01:15 PM            

Science is based on materialism. It works with what's tangeable; it looks for reliability and consistency. The premises of science are indeed interchangeable with materialism. Materialism has dominated science since Descartes. Just because it gets a bad rap sometimes and people don't like to refer to it as it is, doesn't mean we don't still apply it.

What do you think we have now in the 20th century... semi-materialism? If it's not materialism still, then what is it?

posted 01-01-2001 01:27 PM            

quote:

---

Skepticism's bad rap arises from the impression that, however necessary the activity, it can only be regarded as a negative removal of false claims. Not so... Proper debunking is done in the interest of an alternate model of explanation, not as a nihilistic exercise. The alternate model is rationality itself, tied to moral decency--the most powerful joint instrument for good that our planet has ever known.
[Stephen Jay Gould, from Michael Shermer, Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition & Other Confusions of Our Time, p. xii)]

---

I believe it's necessary to bring in outside professional opinions to eliminate that sickly proposition that it's simply an issue of belief vs. non-belief on this thread.

posted 01-01-2001 03:17 PM            

Psichick, I use bundled herbs.

Roman, you're full of hogwash. How dare you project your bullshit onto me. You don't know me. How the fuck do you know how I live my life? A lot of the spiritual claims I've read here and seen in my life are meaningless to me. As you say, they are perception based, they have no relevence if they are true or not. Religion is utterly bogus to me, but I've learned to not mess with that arena. People need their superstitions just as others need their MTV. And I certainly don't need to believe in a higher power for a sense of ssecurity or purpose. You have a limited perspective AND a limited projection.

I was an atheist until I turned 19, then I started really questioning psychic phenomenon. This car thing happened to me the first week after I saw my first psychic and first started listening - not believing - but listening. Even still, I've tried again and again to rationalize the car demon thing. I still occassionally ask my friend to tell me the whole story, just to make sure it's the same and it's true. I find it hard to believe. I put it in the realm of 'spirit' or 'psychic' experience because there is no material explanation for what happened.
When I was 21, my study with the Tarot led me to experience Samadhi - or to experience what people would call God. I don't like to talk about it, as people usually look at me like I'm crazy and I have no evidence to offer. People usually project onto me that I'm on some kind of power trip. Or that' there's a psychological reason that I would need to make such an assertion.

The truth is, it just happened to me. And that experience, which by its nature I cannot communicate, is it for me. It's everything. It wiped out everything else I believe. It's more fact than science or perception or anything else. It eclipsed everything.

Psychologists would say I was manic. Scientists would say I was hallucinating. I have no defense against other people's bias.
So there it is.
But if you think I will deny that experience, in order to live a better life by your standards, you are insane.

posted 01-01-2001 03:35 PM            

Because science accepts humility, is no reason to simply abandon it or consider it all relative. Science accepts humility so we can learn and grow. Anything that doesn't change becomes obsolete.

Don't bother trying to discredit the last 400 years or so of knowledge by saying Science changes its opinions every now and then... which is also not enough reason to just give up reason and logic, throw them to the wind, and say, Yes, to all supernatural perceptions.

And to be clear, Tommy, I am not discrediting your experiences, only your perceptions (your persistence to link cause/effect relationships so that external events circle around your thoughts of them) of the events.

posted 01-01-2001 06:16 PM            

GREAT BOOK!

Sylvia Browne's "Life on the Other Side"

published Aug. 2000, Best Seller List.

It is a Psychic's Tour of the Other Side.

Since Edgar Case I have been reading Psychic Phenomena, This book combines everything under one cover.

It is now my favorite.

Read it and let's talk.

posted 01-01-2001 07:45 PM            

quote:

---

Skepticism's bad rap arises from the impression that, however necessary the activity, it can only be regarded as a negative removal of false claims. Not so... Proper debunking is done in the interest of an alternate model of explanation, not as a nihilistic exercise. The alternate model is rationality itself, tied to moral decency--the most powerful joint instrument for good that our planet has ever known.
[Stephen Jay Gould, from Michael Shermer, Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition & Other Confusions of Our Time, p. xii)]

---

So far, roman, I have agreed with everybody you quoted. Yet I cannot agree with the wild leaps you make in your inferrences from them. These wild leaps are not scientific. And nothing you quoted gets to the heart of my debate with you. I uphold science completely and agree that the debunking of inadequate physical theories is necessary. But Gould is referring to physical theory, not the postulation of spirituality. You still fail to bring to this debate any scientifically verifiable debunking of spirituality.

posted 01-01-2001 08:37 PM            

Roman, you've mistaken by statement about many of today's scientific theories previously being considered mystical nonsense. I'm not trying to discredit 400 years of science.

I'm suggesting that there has always existed supernatural phenomena. And that scientists have always explored this stuff, and once they get their hands on it it becomes assimilated science. A lot of what is held as scientific truth today was considered impossible dreams of spiritual fringe idiots only decades ago. It seems likely to follow that many spiritual concepts will turn out to have a physical reality to them once science catches up.

I'm not a scientist or a debater. I can't express myself in concise technical terms like some of the others here.

posted 01-01-2001 11:55 PM            

Until recently, the "chi" (aura, soul, life-energy, etc.) was considered a spiritual term; in the past few years some health plans have begun to accept acupuncture and other chi-manipulating procedures as payable medical treatments for arthritis, depression, smoking cessation and digestive disorders.

posted 01-02-2001 10:52 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by francescoassisi:
I thought this thread was about spirituality? There's no need to be practical unless you want to be.

I'm only using the language of science here to argue against its misrepresentation as a system that debunks spirituality when really it does not discuss spirituality at all. It only debunks bad physical theory that is thought to eminate from spiritual systems. It does not debunk spirtuality as a whole, which is quite a different thing altogether.

---

You have still yet to provide a basis for spirituality. Any proof at all, please.

It's not up to science to disprove your theories. You've got it all wrong. Science demonstrates that there is no proof and no evidence for your claims, other than you want to believe it.

posted 01-02-2001 10:56 AM            

quote:

---

what is the status of
mathematical concepts like numbers, mythical figures like river nymphs, comic-book characters like Donald Duck, and the like? Non-reductionists argue they are non-material, non-physical entities that
are able to influence the physical world yet are inexplicable in terms of natural laws[13]. While granting a fictional, artificially man-made status to such phenomena, reductionists, on the other hand,
argue that they do physically exist. Even when they are not physically embodied, say, in maps, epic poems, or comic books, they are actively or passively realized in the brains of intelligences capable of understanding and communicating them. In other words, all such ideas must be created, remembered, and transmitted in the form of appropriately processed neuronal firings by conscious
intelligences to have whatever effect they do have outside those intelligences. They are in fact always physically embodied, either in brains or in the artifacts produced as a result of conscious effort. When and if no brain ever again lights up with the concept or memory of them, they have ceased to
exist in that form, though most of the atomic elements which have produced them in brains in the past and could again produce them in the future will probably persist in some form as long as our present cosmos persists. To the reductionist, human thought and feeling are most definitely material entities
capable of influencing other material entities like mountains, rivers, metal ores, and electric and nuclear energy in huge and spectacular ways.

---

posted 01-02-2001 10:59 AM            

quote:

---

Modern scientific reductionism has succeeded in showing that the manifold phenomena of physical nature -- light, heat, rocks, flora, fauna, consciousness -- are probably manifestations of a single, foundational, material reality, perhaps ultimately describable in the terms of some future human science. Materialism welcomes this success as further confirmation of its 2500-year-old hypotheses.

---

posted 01-02-2001 11:04 AM            

quote:

---

Reductionist materialism holds that mental states are identical to brain states, "that facts about mentality are reducible to physical facts, i.e. facts about matter and material processes" (p. 751 of "Reductionism, Mental" by Jaegwon Kim in The Oxford Companion to Philosophy edited by Ted
Honderich). On a reductionist view, there is nothing about consciousness that is "over and above" physical brain processes.

---

quote:

---

Eliminative materialists contend that minds don't exist, that our 'vague talk' about things like feelings, thoughts, desires, etc, needs to be eliminated from our vocabulary and replaced with precise
scientific terms referring only to brain states. In his Preface to the Paperback Edition (1992) of his A Materialist Theory of the Mind, David Armstrong confesses: "One Materialist theory I have never been drawn to is the Eliminativist account of the mental... If I were to become convinced that there is
an incompatibility between a materialist or physicalist view of the world and the existence of the mental, then I would reluctantly turn Dualist. Materialism is a theory, even if, as I think, a good theory. The existence of mental things--pains, beliefs, and so on--seems to me to be part of
bedrock, Moorean, commonsense. Its epistemic warrant is far better than that of Materialism" (p.xix).

---

posted 01-02-2001 11:19 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by roman74:
You have still yet to provide a basis for spirituality. Any proof at all, please.

It's not up to science to disprove your theories. You've got it all wrong. Science demonstrates that there is no proof and no evidence for your claims, other than you want to believe it.

You've got your glasses on wrong or something. You forgot that it's YOU who has to provide proof for your claims.

---

The human need for some form of faith (whether that manifests itself as religous or spiritual beliefs or, in your case, the fervent belief in science and logic -- either way it's the same fundamental need) seems to be omnipresent. As the only beings on this planet there seems to be a basic needto make order out of the seemingly chaotic nature of things. This is, in its way, a base and involuntary instinct -- a reaction to both fear and joy. Accepting that, it is possible to conclude that the need for sort of comfort and order that faith brings is as inherent in the brain's evolution as any other survival instinct.

posted 01-02-2001 11:38 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ilise:
The human need for some form of faith (whether that manifests itself as religous or spiritual beliefs or, in your case, the fervent belief in science and logic -- either way it's the same fundamental need) seems to be omnipresent. As the only beings on this planet there seems to be a basic needto make order out of the seemingly chaotic nature of things. This is, in its way, a base and involuntary instinct -- a reaction to both fear and joy. Accepting that, it is possible to conclude that the need for sort of comfort and order that faith brings is as inherent in the brain's evolution as any other survival instinct.

---

I agree. In fact, it's what I've been stating. Only I use logic and reason to help eliminate the inconsistent beliefs. I have also stated that we should accept more responsible beliefs in place of superstitions and supernatural-intervention stories.

posted 01-02-2001 11:42 AM            

francesco replies:

Spirituality requires no proof. I never claimed that it did. Spirituality has always been an intimate response to the world, a personal view. It does not have to be shared among individuals. It can be one person's world.

Institutionalized spirituality, on the other hand is a sharing of ideas about that relationship to the world. But it is an expression that one consents to because it fits one's experience and views, not because it has been proven as true. Many people say that spirituality is based on belief. I believe that at a deeper level, it is based more on what one finds beautiful and useful in the world. And neither beauty nor practicality require proofs. One either recognizes them directly or does not.

roman says:

It's not up to science to disprove your theories.

francesco responds:

I've been saying this all along. But I'm also saying that Science can not ever hope to either, since spirituality is specific to each individual. Science is not equipped to examine or hypothesize on the personal experience. It examines experience of events that are shared (or what is sometimes debated to be universal).

roman says:

You've got it all wrong. Science demonstrates that there is no proof and no evidence for your claims, other than you want to believe it.

francesco responds:

You are misrepresenting me and science here. I am saying that spirituality cannot be proven. But I am also saying that Science makes no attempt to prove spirituality because the very definition of spirituality lies outside the parameters of science. The experience of indiviuals that cannot be described in words cannot be treated by Science because Science requires descriptions of events before it can try to observe those events, But spiritual experiences occur within a single individual, and they cannot be observed or spoken about. Science can only observe the physical manifestations of those experiences, not the experiences themselves.

roman says:

You've got your glasses on wrong or something. You forgot that it's YOU who has to provide proof for your claims.

francesco responds:

I don't wear glasses. I HAVE 20-20 VISION.

AND AGAIN, NO PROOF NECESSARY FOR SPIRITUALITY, AS IT IS A SINGULAR EXPERIENCE THAT CANNOT BE DEMONSTRATED IN PHYSICAL TERMS.

posted 01-02-2001 12:08 PM            

"what is the status of
mathematical concepts like numbers, mythical figures like river nymphs, comic-book characters like Donald Duck, and the like? Non-reductionists argue they are non-material, non-physical entities that
are able to influence the physical world yet are inexplicable in terms of natural laws[13]. While granting a fictional, artificially man-made status to such phenomena, reductionists, on the other hand,
argue that they do physically exist. "

francesco responds:

This is a simplistic generalization. I don't know who it was written for, but not for someone with my background in the philosophy and criticism of Science and Theory.

There are many kinds of non-reductionists, and they have many reasons for not agreeing with reductionists. The person writing the above discusses only one type.

I tend to favor the phenomenological approach to psychology. Phenomenologists believe that concepts have a physical manifestation that can be observed, but they also have a phenomenological (a big word for experiential) quality or value that cannot be observed, it can only be subjectively experienced as a mental or physical event.

roman's quote:

"Even when they are not physically embodied, say, in maps, epic poems, or comic books, they are actively or passively realized in the brains of intelligences capable of understanding and communicating them. In other words, all such ideas must be created, remembered, and transmitted in the form of appropriately processed neuronal firings by conscious intelligences to have whatever effect they do have outside those intelligences. They are in fact always physically embodied, either in brains or in the artifacts produced as a result of conscious effort. When and if no brain ever again lights up with the concept or memory of them, they have ceased to exist in that form, though most of the atomic elements which have produced them in brains in the past and could again produce them in the future will probably persist in some form as long as our present cosmos persists. To the reductionist, human thought and feeling are most definitely material entities capable of influencing other material entities like mountains, rivers, metal ores, and electric and nuclear energy in huge and spectacular ways."

francesco responds:

I agree with what is being stated here, but I would add that it only states half the equation: the observable and quantitative features.

The equation left out is the qualitative effect of the physical event, an effect that generally cannot be shared in any language-based system. For example: the value that the color red has to me.

roman says:

Ideas aren't as phenomenal, as some like to believe.

francesco responds:

This claim has never been substantiated by a concensus of neurologists or psychologists. It is and always has been put forth by a minority of reductionists, and not accorded scientific status. You will find this claim in experimental articles, but not in textbooks that reopresent the scientific canon. (Unless it is a textbook that surveys ongoing debates.)

posted 01-02-2001 12:24 PM            

Spirituality is a perceived relatedness to all things. It is not an actual connectedness that exists outside of one's perceptions.

I appears he just likes to argue. He took a long time beating around the bush to finally agree with me, but I'll accept his resignation jus as well.

posted 01-02-2001 12:35 PM            

And as for the glib cheerleading, afterward, all I have to say is, you call that being scientific?

Let's now make a textual analysis of this quote. Please note that I put enormous brackets around KEY WORDS:

quote:

---

Modern {{{{{scientific reductionism}}}}}} has succeeded in showing that the manifold phenomena of {{{{{{{{{{physical nature}}}}}}}}} -- light, heat, rocks, flora, fauna, consciousness -- are {{{{{{{{probably}}}}}}}}} manifestations of a single, foundational, material reality, {{{{{{{{{{perhaps}}}}}}}}}} ultimately describable in the terms of some future human science. {{{{{{{{Materialism welcomes}}}}}}}} this success as further confirmation of its 2500-year-old hypotheses.

---

And roman adolescently says:

Material science wins out again. Sorry, folks. Time to give up.

Now for treating the words in the brackets:

Notice the writer starts out discussing scientific reductionism. This shows s/he is not discussing materialism. They are very different conceptual entities. Reductionism is the movement toward a description of reality in physical terms. But beside the fact that the concept of "physical nature" means something much more than material, it is only a conceptual movement toward that physical definition, not the arrival at it.

Now notice that the terms "probabaly" and "perhaps" are strategically placed. Whenever you see the words probably or perhaps in any piece of writing, this is a signal that either 1) it is regarded as a hypothesis that cannot be proven, and is still subject to disproof, or 2) that it is not yet met with a scientific concensus even to it's contingency.

posted 01-02-2001 12:35 PM            

Those last quotes were from Richard C. Vitzthum given during a lecture on philosophical materialism. I forgot to give him credit, but that doesn't dismiss their significance.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_vitzthum/materialism.html

Your rhetoric is at best, mediocre. In fact, you are using reductionistic tactics to supposedly debunk reductionism. It's pretty damn obvious, too that you are a reductionist at heart, only you claim to be a relativist so you can slip and slide out of the corners I place you in. I'm seriously tired of playing games with you.

posted 01-02-2001 12:49 PM            

It seems you are reading only the literature of one school: materialism. And it is a school that has not been favored by the majority of scientists of the past half-century. I suggest you read a theoretical survey of the various philosophical schools that have influenced and critiqued science.

And in the future, when you want to cite articles that are scientific, look for the terms "substantiated," "approved" (not proved), and "accorded with a concensus." This will indicate that scientists agree on the theory being advanced. Any tests using "probably" and "perhaps" are not scientific.

posted 01-02-2001 12:52 PM            

It's even more humorous to watch you try to make pleas to the other people on this thread with attempts at debunking my posts.

1) As a relativist, because you can stand for anything, there is no value in anything you post.

and

2) No one else on this board is smart enough or intellectual enough to grasp these concepts. It's just you and me, and you're not making any headway with me, because
a) You are an admitted relativist
b) You admitted that spiritualism is a personal belief; therefore it also has no external qualitative value for comparison sake.
c) It's also clear that you just like to argue for no apparent reasons

All this shows is that you are maybe one step above the rest of the believers in here because you know the reasons of your beliefs. You are not doing yourself or the others in here any favors by trying to deflate the importance of science, or logic, or reason because all of your points come back to what you want to believe.

You also do yourself no credit in trying to debunk reductionism when you use it in your discussion methods.

I have demonstrated that following the rules of logic and reason are sufficient in eliminating inconsistent beliefs. I have also admitted that science is a tool and that materialism is a worthy interpretive model because of its proven reliability.

And the only thing you have come up with is that you don't like it; it's not as flexible as you would like it to be.

posted 01-02-2001 01:03 PM            

Rather, people may be bored out of their minds as the two of us battle our heads together. In short, the only thing you have to say after all of this is that you've inflated your own head.

posted 01-02-2001 01:04 PM            

Disprove that, smart guy,
Lady I

quote:

---

Originally posted by roman74:
frances-

It's even more humorous to watch you try to make pleas to the other people on this thread with attempts at debunking my posts.

1) As a relativist, because you can stand for anything, there is no value in anything you post.

and

2) No one else on this board is smart enough or intellectual enough to grasp these concepts. It's just you and me, and you're not making any headway with me, because
a) You are an admitted relativist
b) You admitted that spiritualism is a personal belief; therefore it also has no external qualitative value for comparison sake.
c) It's also clear that you just like to argue for no apparent reasons

---

posted 01-02-2001 01:13 PM            

Well, the world has booted Marxists out of power everywhere. And now, I boot your bullying tactics out.

posted 01-02-2001 01:18 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by roman74:
Thanks for agreeing with me, Ilise. I'm glad you can follow these concepts, too. (BTW, that wasn't a slur at you. Frances likes to pontificate and inflate his head - and I was referencing to his flowery, but anal speeches)

In the meantime I'm doing my research on Mr. Denson. Take care.

---

Uhh..do you know what the word schmuck means?

posted 01-02-2001 02:26 PM            

Relativism holds that there is no one overriding or absolute Truth that is the same for all, but an infinite variety of perspectives one can find in the world. In other words, each one of us sees the world from a different vantage point, none of them being the same.

But there is enough of the world that overlaps in our experience for us to talk about it and represent it in a useful system like science and technology. That's why I have faith in science. For science is the attempt to define all the things in the world that we share and can agree on. That's why science only adopts those statements that can be shown to correlate with our experience, as well as why its experiments must be able to repeat the same results each time on demand. It must be repeatable for anyone who conducts the experiment under the same circumstances of space and time.

But science is only able to catalogue that part of human experience that overlaps, not the personal things that are peculiar to us, or singular in the world. And as much of the world is not shared in the same way by everyone, it becomes exceedingly hard for us to agree on many things. The relativist maintains that these subjective experiences are no less true to the individuals experiencing them.

Really, my relativism is referred to as pragmatism, which is a kind of relativism that can agree with everything science holds as a shared (or intersubjective) truth, while at the same time maintaining that the statements that a single individual professes in sincerity and especially those that prove to be useful to them are true in a subjective sense.

posted 01-02-2001 03:00 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by francescoassisi:
I'm going to sign out for the day, but before I do, I want to leave my personal definition of relativism behind as my defense against roman's claims for it.

Relativism holds that there is no one overriding or absolute Truth that is the same for all, but an infinite variety of perspectives one can find in the world. In other words, each one of us sees the world from a different vantage point, none of them being the same.

But there is enough of the world that overlaps in our experience for us to talk about it and represent it in a useful system like science and technology. That's why I have faith in science. For science is the attempt to define all the things in the world that we share and can agree on. That's why science only adopts those statements that can be shown to correlate with our experience, as well as why its experiments must be able to repeat the same results each time on demand. It must be repeatable for anyone who conducts the experiment under the same circumstances of space and time.

But science is only able to catalogue that part of human experience that overlaps, not the personal things that are peculiar to us, or singular in the world. These subjective experiences are no less true to the individuals experiencing them, and that is what a relativist like myself maintains.

Still, because we have vantage points that overlap, we can elaborate a language from the things we share, and these things can be agreed on in a consensus. Because of that consensus, it is not the case that anything that one says about things apart from oneself is true. On the contrary, the thing said has to be common to everyone concerned before it can be true. But since so much of the world is not shared in the same way by everyone, it becomes exceedingly hard for us to agree on most things.

Really, my relativism is referred to as pragmatism, which is a kind of relativism that can agree with everything science maintains as a shared (or intersubjective) truth, while at the same time holding that the statements that a single individual maintains in sincerity and are useful to them are true in a subjective sense.

[This message has been edited by francescoassisi (edited 01-02-2001).]

---

Oh, great. This guy not only floats around as he sees fit for his particular argument at any particular moment, but he apparently has his own personal definitions for an already established ideology, called relativism.

The truth is his form of relativism is the same that is true for anyone who follows it. This Frances guy just likes to pontificate his perceived unique perceptions of the world. Like I said, it all boils down to a wishy-washy point of view where he can simply change his stance with each new wind that comes by, and to me, this is cowardly.

Theoretically speaking, even relativism is a stake in the ground somewhere. And it's not as open-minded as he would like to think. It's simply a clever tool cowards use in argument form so that no one can ever accuse them of being too favorable of any topic and therefore allowing them to slide from topic to topic avoiding specific defenses for claims they make. It's likewise a romantic idealism - a facade of noble intellectualism to front a muddy swamp of ideas. The stake in the ground he has chosen is that of a weather vane. Yeah, you always know where to look to find the direction of the next wind, but he will never claim he has anything to do with it. He's just the "messenger", and "don't shoot him" because he's just the guy in the middle.

Relativism is an intellectual excuse as well. He may as well admit he is agnostic. Likewise, it is a convenient conclusion without seeming like he is slighting any particular view, yet he has reason enough to jump on a spiritual thread for some kind of crusade.

So far, I've only found the name Roger Denson as a contributor to Art Criticism books, and I'm not that impressed with his other credentials for the simple fact of his relative stances on things. I was ready to post my credentials, but comparable to this, I could be a street sweeper who never graduated highschool who stands for his beliefs, and have twice as much value in a discussion than this guy.

posted 01-02-2001 03:11 PM            

As a relativist, your ideas of value are useless and therefore your opinions are equally valueless. There is, in fact, no point in discussing something with someone who can easily change their opinion of something whenever the slightest wind comes along.

francesco responds:

sorry, wrong again.

On scientific issues, I adopt scientific criteria and stick with it. On spiritual issues, I go with the spiritual criteria. On ethical issues, I adopt an ethical criteria and stick with it. On artistic matters, the same. And I always carry my relativist values with me. That's not changing with the wind. That's being consistent but flexible enough to let others maintain their points of view.

And that applies to you too, roman. I recognize that there are issues that are best decided by materialist models -- but only when materiality is the focus. When materialist criteria is carried over into experiences of the world that are not material, then I complain against the carry over.

That's not changing with the wind. That's remaining consistently against overreaching ideologies. It's also favoring the model that works the best, and sometimes a materialist model works well for people and sometimes it doesn't. But it's up to each person to decide for him or herself what works for them. Not for any authority who asserts itself over them.

And I'm still waiting for those credentials.