How do we know what is true?

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

@ChemGal (and Inanna and Herm) *chansen warning *

Now this is interesting:
http://ww2.nationalpost.com/m/wp/bl...-in-study-into-post-traumatic-stress-disorder

http://www.maps.org/research/mdma/mdma_ptsd_canada_study/

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

More about the organization:

http://mapscanada.org/

My fear of something like this is, if it were me, I'd have to have a good vibe about the doctor giving it to me or I would be afraid that the therapy itself could be traumatic - depending on the drug.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Maybe the whole world should participate in this study.

 

[Delightful Life]

So anyhew, the OP is 'How do we know what is true?'

So what does that mean?

Ok, say 'true' is that which exists independently of us. So that would throw post-modernism out (my inner postmodernist just blushed in shame)

The next questions would be:

1. Can we apprehend this truth?

2. If so, how?

That's fundamentally what this thread is aboot :3

This thread I'm seeing as the theoretical side of the question...my thread is guided towards the experiential side. Both of them will complement each other...

Oh yeah, and I'd like to publically state that I'm really enjoying the one-two between ChemGal & Kimmio on this thread -- that's nice to see

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

If what the truth is exists totally independent of us - that throws us out which, I don't know how the definition of post-modernism fits - but it 'seems to me' that if we dismiss collective experiential truths as 'truth' that don't fit the scientific methodological paradigm - then we're throwing an essential aspect of ourselves away.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

If the truth exists independent of us - then we're all lie? And nothing we can ascertain or discover is the absolute truth? What a weird thought that just was. I like the last one better. I'm with Herm. We need experiential wisdom to get to the capital T truth.

 

[Delightful Life]

If what the truth is exists totally independent of us - that throws us out which, I don't know how the definition of post-modernism fits - but it 'seems to me' that if we dismiss collective experiential truths as 'truth' that don't fit the scientific methodological paradigm - then we're throwing an essential aspect of ourselves away.

No, it doesn't throw us English majors out -- your belief that you are really a dragon princess has no bearing on the processes behind when a bird poops on your head

(i included post-modernism because in post modernism, there is no truth)

If and when we can find this 'truth', we can also find out HOW WE INTERACT with it. How to harmoniously (and what that means and doesn't mean etc) with it.

We have to define our terms to be able to coherently talk aboot what this thread is aboot. Which is what I have tried to do to rein it in :3

OMG, EARTH IS ENDING!!!!!

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

K, sorry. I'm out.

 

[Delightful Life]

Well, a truth is that, Kimmio, I think, you are the energy that keeps this thread going

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Post modernism contradicts itself. A post modern explanation of reality throws post modernism out and denies reality which denies existance in reality which OMG I'm not here...but then again if reality doesn't exist it can't be thrown out. Nothing and everything exists. How post modern.

Anyway, I don't want to be the only energy that keeps this thread going.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

@ChemGal and Inanna

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Feyerabend

I'm going to explore this guy's writing a bit more. G'night.

 

[Delightful Life]

G'nite, m'dear!

 

[ChemGal]

This goes back a ways in the conversation, but I just came across this and had to share:
http://www.bad.org.uk/for-the-public/skin-cancer/drinkable-sunscreen

Drinkable SPF! Except they can't test the SPF, but claim it's like 30. It doesn't state it's homeopathic, but it's all water.

 

[Delightful Life]

This goes back a ways in the conversation, but I just came across this and had to share:
http://www.bad.org.uk/for-the-public/skin-cancer/drinkable-sunscreen

Drinkable SPF! Except they can't test the SPF, but claim it's like 30. It doesn't state it's homeopathic, but it's all water.

If it worked I'd be soooo into that...sunscreen is SO ICKY

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

@Inannawhimsey @ChemGal

Very interesting. I don't have this philosopher's highly tuned communication skills. Maybe @chansen will read this if he's still checking out this thread.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemological_anarchism

 

[Delightful Life]

@Inannawhimsey @ChemGal

Very interesting. I don't have this philosopher's highly tuned communication skills. Maybe @chansen will read this if he's still checking out this thread.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemological_anarchism

*chuckle* oh my

for Paul to be able to do what he did, he first had to learn how science etc works

he had to learn how to colour within the lines

only then could he learn the loopholes, how to colour outside the lines

people take *courses* on Feyerabend...don't worry aboot grokking him right now...

a good easy book that takes you on a tour of philosophical ideas is Sophie's World by Jostein Gaarder. its written like a real story too, so you don't have to worry as much aboot being BORED OUT OF YOUR SKULL by jargon...

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

@InannaWhimsey I own that book. Thanks for suggesting that it might be a little simpler for the likes of me (poor me). I read it about 10 years ago. I just read about Feyeraband today...and I 'grokked' the little bit I read so far. Actually, I 'grok' perfectly well what is meant by his claim that there are no 'exception free methodological rules' even if I don't know those rules very well. I grok that 'scientific method does not have a monopoly on truth or useful results' - therefore, it could be said that I am simply speaking my mind according to that same principle.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

*chuckle* oh my

for Paul to be able to do what he did, he first had to learn how science etc works

he had to learn how to colour within the lines

only then could he learn the loopholes, how to colour outside the lines

people take *courses* on Feyerabend...don't worry aboot grokking him right now...

a good easy book that takes you on a tour of philosophical ideas is Sophie's World by Jostein Gaarder. its written like a real story too, so you don't have to worry as much aboot being BORED OUT OF YOUR SKULL by jargon...

Do you know that he 'had to' learn to colour within the lines first to be able to grok anything outside the lines...or is that you being scientifically methodological in your thought process? If he did so - did he 'have to'?

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

I think philosophers, by their nature, understand outside the lines and then attempt to construct a bunch of lines (usually sentences)in order to communicate what they understand.

 

[Hermann]

@ChemGal (and Inanna and Herm) *chansen warning *

Now this is interesting:
http://ww2.nationalpost.com/m/wp/bl...-in-study-into-post-traumatic-stress-disorder

http://www.maps.org/research/mdma/mdma_ptsd_canada_study/

Hi Kimmio:

I'm all in favour of displacing post traumatic stress disorder, depression, drug addiction, and other psychological disorders with mystical ecstasy!

My favourite rehab center is the Round Lake Treatment Center near Vernon, were they replace or displace various mental disorders and drug addiction with mystical ecstasy, using traditional aboriginal rituals like the Sweat Lodge and the Vision Quest.

Science and mysticism are, in my view, very compatible. I think that good mystics make good scientists, and vice versa. The two are not mutually exclusive but inclusive!

Science alone is intelligent but unholy; mysticism alone is holy but unintelligent. The union between the two renders mysticism intelligent and science holy.