In my view, the demand for scientific proof, a la the linear empiricism of cause and effect (not even quantum physics), is still very big in western culture. The Roman Church even adopted a twisted version of this methodology, in its Inquisition and its reluctance to acknowledge both miracles and the "god within". The whole saga of the spiritualist church has been about "proving the existence of life beyond this plane." Proof, proof, proof, as if they could only be "legitimate" if they "proved" it.
But that doesnt account for the majority of christian/catholics, who outweight atheists and scientists, and their premise is faith and belief, over any scientific theory or reasoning. This is the church vs the secular. And we know this, the evolution vs creation argument - you know they still try to keep the theory of evolution out of public schools, to this day. It wasnt that long ago vicki, they were battling in court, with the scopes trial, when you think about it, thats less than a hundred years ago. There are many who felt 'threatened' by evolution being taught in schools. That same battle, church and state, the 'evil secular vs christ' battle wages on, in numerous other ways.
Im okay with the demand for some proof. I know its necessary because if we didnt have it, then we wouldnt have things like evolution being taught in schools.
I submit that all of this phenomena is beyond the range of our small-minded "proof".
True it is. But everything still should be able to be questioned.
Rationalism didn't help either: "I think therefore I am" even further ennobled our fascination with our own thoughts, and led to a veritable institutionalization of duality and dichotomy. (See all the works of Alan Watts.)
At least though, many other philosophies which we can examine though, through that variety
We go to dictionaries, to pour into the essence of a word, as if the truth lay there, mystically. But all we really learn in the dictionary is about our own minds/selves/cultures/language/epistemology. Not that that learning is a useless endeavor by any means, but I maintain that that which is quintessential, that which is mystical, that which is spirit, cannot be found in words.
Just my take~
No, but it can be found in the heart of the writer, the mystic who pens down their soul, and expresses, or the poet. Words can 'reach' us. Just some are better at doing it, like Rilke, or Rumi.
Topic: The mistake of identifying words with 'things' (Read 144 times)
