Month, Day: Glory, Questions (Justice)
‘Abdu’l-Bahá, in the SAQ #40, notes how we know a couple of different ways which need to be better understood as both are important to human affairs.
The first way is familiar to anyone who has taken a course in an educational institute (which will be predominately all humans, at some point) or who has worked mechanically or who has performed scientific experiments. It is a way of effort, not necessarily in the form of a cramming session.
The second way is intuitive and has fallen out of favor in modern times. This latter way is how the Manifestations know, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá says.
The first method is "the outcome of effort and study," whereas the second method " is an existing thing; it is an absolute gift." Both are required for a balanced science. The prior post discussed how our study of Creation must be augmented by UHJ input. Essentially, this input would be of both types. It will be interesting to look at this further.
Since we know that another Manifestation will not be here for several 100s of years (with 1000 years being the most usual separation), the intuitive method will have limits for the individual and for groups, except that the UHJ limits will be lessor (think of infallibilities as being nested just like topologies).
Both types of methods can be used to resolve issues related to our 'quasi-empirical' limitations.
Remarks:
09/06/2009 -- Essentially, more is undecidable than we like to admit, basically due to our talent for success (ergodicity, essentially) keeps the hubris refreshed (generation by generation).
08/16/2009 -- The Operational group is approaching, and ontology is primal. One area of focus, as suggested by this post, will be mind-body studies. Somehow, insights from the Writings ought to have importance, teleological and operational.
05/29/2009 -- The Transcendent baffles.
Modified: 09/06/2009
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Creation based science
Month, Day: Glory, Words (Grace)
Of course, science deals with Creation, and we can allow for many other terms for the physical existence that we all share (Nature, Life, ..., ). The quasi-empirical issue, though, addresses how we, as part of what we study, cannot separate ourselves, even through mathematics.
If we leave aside for the moment that science can deal with how we know God, we, basically, need to base our science on what we can study. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, in the SAQ #16, notes a couple of things that could help found the basis, namely "in exterior existence there is nothing that is not material" and "in the exterior world there is nothing that is not sensible" .
So, the Creation that we'll study is both material and sensible. That is, we can know it, even if the method of knowing is remote via sensors and computation. Too, though, the intuition of the human will come into play, including that which is Divinely-inspired (UHJ's contribution to the ontology).
Those arguments related to Creationism can be left aside, too, as what we can study is there; for much of the case, as we've already seen, questions of origin are 'immaterial' (pun intended).
Remarks:
09/17/2010 -- God's gift of science.
02/24/2010 -- Ascendant to Transcendent.
10/11/2009 -- Will, an operational imperative for science.
10/02/2009 -- World embracing, at its best.
09/06/2009 -- Essentially, more is undecidable than we like to admit, basically due to our talent for success (ergodicity, essentially) keeps the hubris refreshed (generation by generation).
08/05/2009 -- We'll look at SAQ #37 more in the context of how the Teleological influences.
05/29/2009 -- The Transcendent baffles.
Modified: 09/17/2010
Of course, science deals with Creation, and we can allow for many other terms for the physical existence that we all share (Nature, Life, ..., ). The quasi-empirical issue, though, addresses how we, as part of what we study, cannot separate ourselves, even through mathematics.
If we leave aside for the moment that science can deal with how we know God, we, basically, need to base our science on what we can study. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, in the SAQ #16, notes a couple of things that could help found the basis, namely "in exterior existence there is nothing that is not material" and "in the exterior world there is nothing that is not sensible" .
So, the Creation that we'll study is both material and sensible. That is, we can know it, even if the method of knowing is remote via sensors and computation. Too, though, the intuition of the human will come into play, including that which is Divinely-inspired (UHJ's contribution to the ontology).
Those arguments related to Creationism can be left aside, too, as what we can study is there; for much of the case, as we've already seen, questions of origin are 'immaterial' (pun intended).
Remarks:
09/17/2010 -- God's gift of science.
02/24/2010 -- Ascendant to Transcendent.
10/11/2009 -- Will, an operational imperative for science.
10/02/2009 -- World embracing, at its best.
09/06/2009 -- Essentially, more is undecidable than we like to admit, basically due to our talent for success (ergodicity, essentially) keeps the hubris refreshed (generation by generation).
08/05/2009 -- We'll look at SAQ #37 more in the context of how the Teleological influences.
05/29/2009 -- The Transcendent baffles.
Modified: 09/17/2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
