It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What Is Science FOR? What Is Revealed Truth FOR?

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 04:27 PM
link   
What is reality for? What is philosophy for? What is science for? What is Revealed Truth for?
What is a woman for?

Ultimately, it is all the same question.

And there is a masculine answer and a feminine answer to that question.

The masculine answer: Reality, philosophy, science, Revealed Truth, and a woman are to be understood. (And, speaking from experience, good luck with that.)

And, in an attempt to understand these things, there is, for example, the scientific method and theology (as manifested in, for example, the conflicts between the evolutionists and the creationists); both of which perspectives are, however, masculine.

But, in addition to the masculine answer to this question, there is also the feminine answer:

That reality, philosophy, science, Revealed Truth and a woman are not so much to be understood as to be lived and experienced.

And will any of these things ever be understood?

Well, not by a man anyway (although there is a lot of joy and suffering in the attempt).

And why not?

Because that is not what they are FOR.

Ultimately, it is not so much the purpose of reality or a woman to be understood, as it is their purpose to be loved and enjoyed, and tolerated, and suffered, and experienced, and lived rather than merely understood.

That is what life is: an experience more than an understanding. (As Kierkegaard said: "Life is lived forwards and understood backwards.")

And, ultimately, it is not so much the purpose of Revealed Truth to be understood as it is its purpose to be experienced as a dimension of consciousness altogether different than the consciousness of the “self” and the ‘thinker’.

Ultimately, it is the purpose of Revealed Truth not so much to be believed as to achieve a completely different dimension of consciousness altogether; not as merely a theory based upon a belief, but as an actual experience out of which knowledge and, then, understandings (although tentative) emerge.

Neither the evolutionists nor the creationists appear to be aware of this.

Mi cha el




posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Michael Cecil
And will any of these things ever be understood?

Well, not by a man anyway (although there is a lot of joy and suffering in the attempt).

And why not?

Because that is not what they are FOR.



"'Peter,' she asked, trying to speak firmly, 'what are your exact feelings for me?'
'Those of a devoted son, Wendy.'
'I thought so,' she said, and went and sat by herself at the extreme end of the room.
'You are so queer,' he said, frankly puzzled, 'and Tiger Lily is just the same. There is something she wants to be to me, but she says it is not my mother.'
'No, indeed, it is not,' Wendy replied with frightful emphasis."


www.youtube.com...



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 08:59 AM
link   
The fact that some people wish to experience the quest for truth, while others wish to succeed in their quest for truth, has no impact on whether anything is true or not. Truth is what it is, and the masculine and feminine exist as existential expressions. Trying to have each define the other is like broadcasting tap dancing over the radio. There's no real correlation, but that's never stopped anyone from going ahead and doing it.

Not everything that exists is designed with the human perspective as the audience. Some things simply exist because without them existence wouldn't be possible. Truth is one of those things. It can be known, and it can be experienced as a quest, but neither is why it exists.
edit on 11/27/2010 by NorEaster because: typo



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 09:16 AM
link   
As smart as we'd like to think we are, we lack one vital trait: self-awareness.

This is the game. You become aware, you run, and then you jump to the next level.

Evolution: technological, spiritual, philosophical, and biological.

P.S.
The feminine is the commander.
The masculine is the pilot.
Do a barrel roll!!

edit on 27-11-2010 by xiphias because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 03:37 PM
link   
I feel that your assumption of purpose is flawed.

While I do approach this from an evolutionary viewpoint, it is nevertheless the one from which I typically approach everything. In explanation:

1) that which comes into being does so regardless of purpose. Purpose may exist, but typically does so seperate to - and independent of - mechanism. Mechanism itself may have purpose (=reason), but is itself also driven by mechanism (=cause).

2) that which remains in being does so because it is not caused to cease to do so, or has not yet been caused to do so. This implies that costs incurred by existence are not greater than benefits, but benefits do not need to be greater than costs (i.e. values of 0 or greater in terms of payoff).

So anything - organism, gene, concept, person, word, etc, exists because it happens to, and does not cease to exist because nothing causes it to do so. Purpose is abitrary.

It made sense in my head... not so much written down. More tea may help.



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheWill
I feel that your assumption of purpose is flawed.


How so?

On the basis of logic?

So what?

I don't really care.

There is a logical description or explanation of reality; and, then, there is the poetic description of reality; the first coming from the consciousness of the 'thinker', the other coming from the consciousness of the "self".

I am using "purpose" in a poetic sense.

Just like the moon was not really "a ghostly galleon tossed upon cloudy seas".

Logic may make living possible; poetry makes it tolerable.

Mi cha el



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Michael Cecil
 


Science reveals the truth by finding evidence and then drawing the best conclusion it can. It isn't a system for defining absolute or transcendent truth (if such a thing even exists). Using Science, a method based on objective evidence, is the only reliable way to get closer to the truth that we've found thus far.



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull Science reveals the truth by finding evidence and then drawing the best conclusion it can. It isn't a system for defining absolute or transcendent truth (if such a thing even exists). Using Science, a method based on objective evidence, is the only reliable way to get closer to the truth that we've found thus far.


Well, there are two kinds of truth: scientific truth and another Truth beyond science.

Scientific truth has to do with the space-time reality (and consciousness) and all of the evidence of the 3-dimensional 'curved' space reality.

But there is a dimension of consciousness beyond that reality; the non-dualistic consciousness of the Eastern religions; that dimension of consciousness which, for example, is capable of receiving memories of previous lives.

Those memories are both evidence of the living of more than one life, as well as evidence of a dimension of consciousness completely beyond the consciousness of the 'thinker' (which is the foundation of the scientific method) as well as the consciousness of the "self".

This is also the dimension of consciousness of Revealed Truth.

Theology and religion, however, have neither the evidence of science nor the evidence provided by either Revelation or the non-dualistic consciousness itself; and, thus, consist completely of thoughts unsupported by reality in any way.

Mi cha el




top topics



 
1

log in

join