"Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast." — Alice in Wonderland Children are born with a miraculous gift, their imagination. Nothing quite compares. Kids can take a cardboard box, dish rag and rolling pin, and embark on a miraculous and epic journey. Consider the old tale of the dog who was rescued from the dishrag dragon that lurked beneath the stove. What an unforgettable and classic adventure. No TV, technology or instruction needed. Running wild with your imagination is one of the funnest parts about being a kid. Fun is also accompanied by fear, especially the foot monster waiting underneath the bed frame. Fortunately, there’s shelter under the covers, and a warm glow from the nightlight while the dog, or sacred cat, guards the lower realm of the bed next to the feet.
So the stick I used as a gun in my early youth was surpassed by a much more real and accurate version as I became of responsible hunting age. But, although the real hunting conquests were quite exciting and adventurous, they could not compare to the world I created, with my stick. Plus the rules were much less restrictive. Wow, do I feel for kids today with their screens. God Bless!!!
Great post, Theodore. Wisdom is gained through the synthesis of opposites. It also reminds me of the expression "the opposite of love is not hate but indifference."
Regarding monitoring one's gut instinct and pairing it with intellect -- this is so important, and I had mostly ignored my gut instinct (felt, in me, generally through unsettled jitteriness) until a couple of years ago. Listening to one's intuition -- even if one ultimately makes a different decision -- is critical.
Synthesizing these different layers of our minds and bodies is needed to become a better, wiser, more in-tune person.
Lastly, you're quite correct, doubting and questioning everything is the base of the scientific method. It's too bad society has forgotten it...
Since many people have lost touch with religion and family something has to take its place. Evil takes advantage of confused, groundless souls. Your essay as usual is beautifully written and sourced.
This is a really useful post for me. I have had such a hard time in the last few years mostly because I find it almost impossible to believe that someone would just stand up and lie to the whole country in public. I believe that the truth wins out in the end, and always comes out, so how can it be that someone would risk their reputation on a statement which one hundred percent will be proven eventually as a lie. But they do it, a lot, and nothing really bad necessarily happens.
That does seem to be "the abandonment of philosophy". I have seen the creature as a variant of "Anubis, the Swallower of Millions"; but dressed as a porcupine, each quill having three barbs: Convenience, Probability, & Death.
I'm not familiar with "Borg". But "normal science" is quite a mouthful to pronounce on "space ship earth".
Nearly all of my experience with the history and philosophy of science centers on arguments around "creation" and "geocentrism".
I've mused much on what I call the "daemonic/technik interface" -- flying saucers have been suggested to be an illustration of that very problem: "the poor little demons need help, their spaceships break down, forcing them to land on earth" &c.
I regret that there is no other way to chat over the distance of a continent -- my "comments" have often waxed rudely long & I am pressed to consider posting them as articles.
Re: "normal science": I do recall Heidegger being paraphrased so: "that philosophy would be abandoned once it had found its fruit in technology".
And Fr. Seraphim Rose, of blessed memory observed, similarly, that every move of discovery in natural philosophy proves an inescapable ratcheting to a sort of slavery, the handmaiden of that tyranny to be found in "normal science". That last utterance was so free a paraphrase that, well, you may have "heard it here, first".
It sounds like Descartes was the founder of modern applied mathematics -- I declare this with appropriate vagueness, since I am competent only to eighth grade math.
I recall long ago seeing a "post" engraved on a college restroom wall, when graffiti was better: "Cogito ergo sumtimes".
Your reference to Descartes is refreshing -- I hadn't read any of his work outside of the above example. My own tour through the history of philosophy of science has been an inductive shot-peaning or lapidary tumble -- indispensable, but nothing of academic value.
Copernicus, no! Geocentrism. Couldn't help it, had to blurt it out. Sorry, helps me digest.
Michael Crichton, in his "Jurassic Park" takes some real jabs at "normal science", eventually arranging for his chief villain, a "normal scientist" to be disemboweled by one of his own GMO's. It's wonderful to have encountered this in the hugely popular page-turner.
But what now? "Normal science" promoting and cloaking its recklessness in the language of the same Star Trek, which had made NASA's science fictional leaps seem like glamping. I'm sure it was having seen the stars whizzing by "like-telephone-poles-on-the-highway" back home that made going for a hike in the woods seem more burdensome than it "really" was.
But doesn’t “gaming” give the adult imagination that ‘jolt’ it needs to be free in imagining? Well, besides the algorithms that tunnel them into advertising dollars from degenerate attachments.
A mass media frenzy of manipulating imagination and childhood desires never freed. So you will have nothing and be happy, of course.
So the stick I used as a gun in my early youth was surpassed by a much more real and accurate version as I became of responsible hunting age. But, although the real hunting conquests were quite exciting and adventurous, they could not compare to the world I created, with my stick. Plus the rules were much less restrictive. Wow, do I feel for kids today with their screens. God Bless!!!
Great post, Theodore. Wisdom is gained through the synthesis of opposites. It also reminds me of the expression "the opposite of love is not hate but indifference."
Regarding monitoring one's gut instinct and pairing it with intellect -- this is so important, and I had mostly ignored my gut instinct (felt, in me, generally through unsettled jitteriness) until a couple of years ago. Listening to one's intuition -- even if one ultimately makes a different decision -- is critical.
Synthesizing these different layers of our minds and bodies is needed to become a better, wiser, more in-tune person.
Lastly, you're quite correct, doubting and questioning everything is the base of the scientific method. It's too bad society has forgotten it...
I wonder if you and Descartes realized how close you were to preaching Christianity.
The primary difference that I see is that the only God, (large G), that actually exists, is not malevolent, but benevolent.
There is a malevolent god, (small g), that also exist. Not really a God, but powerful. Dangerous.
He does live under the bed, and everywhere else too. Not because he is omnipresent, but because he has billions of proxies, yes, demons.
You had the right idea.
Since many people have lost touch with religion and family something has to take its place. Evil takes advantage of confused, groundless souls. Your essay as usual is beautifully written and sourced.
This is a really useful post for me. I have had such a hard time in the last few years mostly because I find it almost impossible to believe that someone would just stand up and lie to the whole country in public. I believe that the truth wins out in the end, and always comes out, so how can it be that someone would risk their reputation on a statement which one hundred percent will be proven eventually as a lie. But they do it, a lot, and nothing really bad necessarily happens.
the imaginary can bring good innovation but it can also bring great foolishness
That does seem to be "the abandonment of philosophy". I have seen the creature as a variant of "Anubis, the Swallower of Millions"; but dressed as a porcupine, each quill having three barbs: Convenience, Probability, & Death.
There's much more in your reply worthy of comment -- more later.
Thanks! I'll look into the Borg.
Alan Bloom's "The Closing of the American Mind" has been my survey course in modern philosophy.
Its title is commonly misunderstood, as his advocacy is rather against the open-mindedness taught in American education since the mid thirties.
I'm not familiar with "Borg". But "normal science" is quite a mouthful to pronounce on "space ship earth".
Nearly all of my experience with the history and philosophy of science centers on arguments around "creation" and "geocentrism".
I've mused much on what I call the "daemonic/technik interface" -- flying saucers have been suggested to be an illustration of that very problem: "the poor little demons need help, their spaceships break down, forcing them to land on earth" &c.
I regret that there is no other way to chat over the distance of a continent -- my "comments" have often waxed rudely long & I am pressed to consider posting them as articles.
Re: "normal science": I do recall Heidegger being paraphrased so: "that philosophy would be abandoned once it had found its fruit in technology".
And Fr. Seraphim Rose, of blessed memory observed, similarly, that every move of discovery in natural philosophy proves an inescapable ratcheting to a sort of slavery, the handmaiden of that tyranny to be found in "normal science". That last utterance was so free a paraphrase that, well, you may have "heard it here, first".
It sounds like Descartes was the founder of modern applied mathematics -- I declare this with appropriate vagueness, since I am competent only to eighth grade math.
Another great read, thank you! (and I wish I could write like this)
Very thought provoking , I think therefore I am type stuff
I recall long ago seeing a "post" engraved on a college restroom wall, when graffiti was better: "Cogito ergo sumtimes".
Your reference to Descartes is refreshing -- I hadn't read any of his work outside of the above example. My own tour through the history of philosophy of science has been an inductive shot-peaning or lapidary tumble -- indispensable, but nothing of academic value.
Copernicus, no! Geocentrism. Couldn't help it, had to blurt it out. Sorry, helps me digest.
Michael Crichton, in his "Jurassic Park" takes some real jabs at "normal science", eventually arranging for his chief villain, a "normal scientist" to be disemboweled by one of his own GMO's. It's wonderful to have encountered this in the hugely popular page-turner.
But what now? "Normal science" promoting and cloaking its recklessness in the language of the same Star Trek, which had made NASA's science fictional leaps seem like glamping. I'm sure it was having seen the stars whizzing by "like-telephone-poles-on-the-highway" back home that made going for a hike in the woods seem more burdensome than it "really" was.
But doesn’t “gaming” give the adult imagination that ‘jolt’ it needs to be free in imagining? Well, besides the algorithms that tunnel them into advertising dollars from degenerate attachments.
A mass media frenzy of manipulating imagination and childhood desires never freed. So you will have nothing and be happy, of course.