Just to lend support to my comments that Darwin was much broader minded than neo-Darwinists, David Loye’s book does a nice job recovering the true views of Darwin.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/79839F99-9C97-4192-AD1C-024679BA7047%40colorado.edu
Respectfully, I agree with JJ Kineman. Mayr should not be cited, even correctly, for the notion that there is something valid about vitalism. While he may have acknowledged that as a logical thing, he unquestionably had very strong views about biology, and he held, as an overarching principle, that Darwinian evolution was a fact (i.e., not a theory). IOW, there is no way he could be read philosophically (albeit he was not a philosopher per se) to admit non-material causal influences. Maybe that Mayr statement will give a grad student studying Mayr something to explain away, but it should be read, if at all philosophically, as evidence Mayr was not trained in philosophy.John Lunstroth
At present biologists are only studying the body of the living organism using physics and chemistry where they completely ignore the very essence of life: thinking, feeling and willing. Biology cannot be grasped by mere physical sciences. We need philosophy to understand the concepts like thinking, feeling and willing.Thanking you.Sincerely,Bhakti Niskama Shanta
On Thursday, 8 August, 2019,
In the last thirty years, the science of development genetics has figured out how this works, and the answers don't involve any additional force of nature that the physicists had overlooked.
I really recommend the whole lecture, and would be happy to discuss it all.
My gripe with the size of e-mails is very simple: the e-mails sent on this mailing list are often unusually large – enough so that, several times, they have filled my inbox, and I couldn't receive any further e-mails for hours or days. That is extremely annoying. It is simply rude to send e-mails without any regard for their size, or at least their ratio of information content to size. The two sentences you quoted stand for themselves – what was the point of illustrating them with a photo of the person who said them? What did that contribute, other than making the whole e-mail look like a clumsy argument from authority?
Please consider these matters.
Sincerely,
David Marjanović
Bhakti Nishkama Shanta
With great respect, thank you for the clarification. As you know from our wonderful conference at Rutgers, there is general agreement on these points, and yet also a desire to accurately represent these historical figures and their views, as well as counter-arguments. I am keenly aware of the present degradation of society in general by the very tempting employment of snapshot impressions and sound-bites. I think we may come to realize at some point that advertising, while necessary for honest exchange, turns evil when it becomes marketing. We’ve seen this now in our politics. We are at a time in history when we must learn to avoid it. As a career scientist, now embracing strong spiritualism as well, and observer of current politics, I very am concerned about any kind of information marketing strategy, and especially the tit-for-tat exchange that leads us to greater polarity. I think Prof. Marjanovic’s comments are to be taken seriously even though I strongly support the message you are trying to get out. I have also studied Ernst Meyr, and my impression was that he was struggling to admit as little as possible to vitalism, while citing it as the target, and to characterize it as a false impression of something more physically real. I disagreed with his assessment in 1988 and I still do. What you and BVI are aware of is true and real. And yet to establish that in the awareness of others must conform to the very highest standards of communication, standards that are rapidly eroding all around us by the misuse of media. It is ironic that I should write this to BVI, which is certainly committed to universal Truth, and struggling against all kinds of mischaracterization of not just spiritual and religious views (often falsely attributed in a negative way by others) but also of BVI’s legitimate scientific views that a majority of ‘scientific populists’ in the Western culture simply don’t like. In many cases their dislike is for reasons that are so empty that their comments can only come as insults. I am not identifying anyone in particular here, just the general nature of public dialogue on social media. So, in perhaps seeming to criticize the recent posting I am really wanting to help present the message. In the Veda it is said that method is greater than end, and actually determines the true character of the end that will be karmically achieved —- quite opposite to the Machiavellian philosophy of “the ends justify the means” which still permeates Western thinking. I think the best we can do is to present the new understanding of reality and show its warm embrace of the full view of those imagining opposition to it. Their opposition will help clarify it. Meanwhile, I want to reserve the option of disagreeing with Meyr on most of his position (at least past position - I’m eating crow if that has changed).
Respectfully,
John Kineman
Dear Prof. John Jay Kineman,
Namaste.
We hope that you are doing well. Thank you for your comments and agreeing with the statement of Ernst Mayr that the basic problems of biology simply cannot be solved by a philosophy as that of Descartes, in which the organism is simply considered a machine.
Ernst Mayr sincerely tried to critique the machine concept of organism and the evidence of the same can be found from his works. The view on living organisms and the attempt to understand biology in terms of physics in modern science is mostly derived more or less directly from the stance which equates organisms as mechanical (machines) in nature. Our Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute sees this as a dangerously misleading characterization about the nature of life. Moreover, we have to understand that this is not just a matter of importance for historians of science but all the concepts of modern biology (for example: seeing protein complexes as molecular-machines; behavior of organism along with its development as a mere execution of a program encoded in the genome; and so on) are driven by this dangerously misleading characterization. Therefore, one of our institute's work is focused on helping the honest and sincere scientists recognize this misconception that is obstructing our progress towards developing a genuine scientific understanding of life.
Thanking you.
Sincerely,
Bhakti Niskama Shanta
Namaste Ram,
We should not distort the conclusion "Brahman in All" or "All in Brahman" to mean that we infinitesimal living entities are the exact same as Brahman, the Supreme Being. We may be of the same quality as Brahman, but we are quantitatively very different. His Divine Grace Srila A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada explains this differentiation very nicely in the following purport of Chaitanya Charitamrita Adi-lila (CC Adi) 14.33:
"In reality, everything is an emanation from the supreme source (janmādy asya yataḥ). The original energy is exhibited in varieties, exactly as the sunshine, the original energy emanating from the sun, exhibits itself in variety as light and heat. One cannot say that light is heat or that heat is light, yet one cannot separate one from the other. Therefore Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu’s philosophy is acintya-bhedābheda,inconceivable nonseparation and distinction. Although there is an affinity between the two physical manifestations light and heat, there is also a difference between them. Similarly, although the whole cosmic manifestation is the Lord’s energy, the energy is nevertheless exhibited in varieties of manifestations."
....
Maybe a similar version of this works. If it is a question of certainty it can be answered by philosophy in the concept of testability. It seems counterintuitive at first but if a proposition is testable in principle, as all scientific hypotheses are supposed to be, then it is impossible to be certain of the answer because the test is finite and the universe of possibilities is infinite. For this reason experimental science prefers to work from reasonable attempts to disprove. But it is different with untestable assumptions in our world view. These are in principle not testable, so if they are arbitrary it is possible for us to be certain of them in the sense that they are all right. There is an indirect form of testability however in deciding which theory framework produces the better theory. So for example Ptolemy’s idea of divine circles isn’t actually proven wrong and cant be, but people found Newton’s idea more parsimonious and useful. I can thus be certain the Ptolemy’s metaphysics are not wrong and so answer the question but I cant do that exclusively between metaphysical propositions. So they are all correct therefore certainty is the case for each. Does that argument work with regard to GT?
I was alluding to this fact in my earlier post saying that the four quadrant framework is a meta-theory. The formal theory we build from it is subject to testing but the framework is a mathematical pattern that is subject to proof just as the idea of a circle is. Perhaps the other theory frames being discussed are also mathematically provable, perhaps not ... do we know?
John
Hi all,
A version of idealism proposes that matter (such as stone or table) is a condensed form of consciousness. The inverse of this is that consciousness is decondensed (sublimated) form of matter. [Sublimation is the transition of a substance directly from the solid to the gas phase, without passing through the intermediate liquid phase.] Thus, in essence, it seems to imply that matter = consciousness and vice-versa. Does this make sense to you?
If this hypothesis is not rejected then all four metaphysical/foundational frameworks (materialism, idealism, dualism, and multi-aspect monism) are simply different ways of “looking” the same fundamental truth. In that case, all metaphysical foundations can claim for “self-certainty” in their own language and GT (Gemini Theorem) cannot be applied.Cheers!
Kind regards,
Rām
Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
Hindu Nationalism in India: Ideology and Politics
B Chakrabarty, BK Jha - 2019
… Introduction; Part 1 Ideological Foundations: nationalism in its theoretical springs; 1 Redesigning the Indian nation: politico-ideological priorities of Dayananda, Vivekananda and Aurobindo; 2 VD Savarkar (1883-1966) …
PN Martins - Psychology, 2019
… I asked Sri Aurobindo to show me “Soul Land”...after a long journey, I was very happy with everything that I have seen … Sri Aurobindo said that our journey was not bound by time; it had taken place in the Infinite, beyond time or space …
[PDF] Modi's Cultural Diplomacy and Role of Indian Diaspora.
J Srinivas - Central European Journal of International & Security …, 2019
… Furthermore, Indian freedom fighters and thinkers like Mahatma Gandhi, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Swami Vivekananda, Sri Aurobindo and Jawaharlal Nehru often stressed the synthesis of diverse values, and cultures for the rise of the Indian nation …
No comments:
Post a Comment