The (lack of the) Mysterious

[zhao]

Not saying that about anyone here though, obvs.

And on reflection that book does spend too much time railing against his perceived ideological enemies - Blake and various others who advocated a romantic, anti-science position.

it is people like this who create the bullshit dichotomies of this or that, science vs. religion.

the trendy religion-hating among "progressives" bent on blaming all of humanity's ills on spiritual practices world wide, while naming science as some kind of infallible way forward, is a view equally myopic, a position just as simple/closed-minded and solipsistic as those of the ignorant fundamentalist freaks these rationalists rail against.

no, what we need more of in the world is not more order, rigidity, anal retention. what we need more of is empathy, connection, intuition, mystery, sensuality. which is NOT institutional, organized religion. the Church (of which ever faith), for all its absurd anti-rationalism, actually operates according to the bureacratic rigidity of the hyper-rational, hierarchical, corporate/government model based on domination and subjugation.

what we need, is what organized religion is a corrupt bastardization of: the return of a much, much older de-centered, non-hierarchical, non-patriarchal spirituality. and with it, social organizing principals based on localized, perhaps mobile, closely knit, self reliant and self sustainable communities.

 

[baboon2004]

sure... but commodified and relegated to the sphere of "entertainment", and thus rendered largely impotent and the sense of mystery alienated from other aspects of life -- not intimately entwined in, and inseparable from, everyday life, like in many of the cultures i refer to (exoticize, romanticize, whatever LOL).

Ok, what about the strongly-held religious views that exist on my mother's side of the family (my mother is also a physicist, as it happens), that do impinge upon everyday life? It's not entertainment, it's a world view. How is that alienated from the mysterious aspects of life, given that it's grounded in things that can never be proved or seen?

And, crucially (correct me if i'm wrong) you haven't given any examples of the kind of everyday practices that you're talking about during this thread. it's all very well to bat down other people's examples, but if you don't provide any yourself, then this debate is taking place on an unequal platform.

 

[mms]

Actually people like Richard Dawkins (I kind of hate the way his name gets used in every one of these debates, as if one always has to think about and genuflect to his opinion) do seem to have a marked hostility towards the mysterious and the irrational. I was really enjoying his Unweaving the Rainbow until a slightly mad section where he claims the X Files functions as propaganda for "the irrational" and compares it to racism. That's not a man who is comfortable with mystery.

I would genuinely love to hear what he makes of something like surrealism.

yes hes annoying cos he basically dismissive of things that can't be explained even if they are carried out with rigorous scientific testing of the kind he uses to validate his arguments.
I saw an interesting article from a scientist who had been being working within some area of anomalous science, esp or something like that and dawkins had invited him on telly to ridicule him but then decided not to etc... . I really wish he wasn't the poster boy for rationalism cos he's so little fun, so unscientific in some ways.

 

[viktorvaughn]

Ok, what about the strongly-held religious views that exist on my mother's side of the family (my mother is also a physicist, as it happens), that do impinge upon everyday life? It's not entertainment, it's a world view. How is that alienated from the mysterious aspects of life, given that it's grounded in things that can never be proved or seen?

And, crucially (correct me if i'm wrong) you haven't given any examples of the kind of everyday practices that you're talking about during this thread. it's all very well to bat down other people's examples, but if you don't provide any yourself, then this debate is taking place on an unequal platform.

here you go

bring back more ritual
go about life and fun with more of a trickster mentality
dress up as demons not on holloween
do inexplicable things without explanation
flash mobs
improvised music outside of concert halls
spontaneous dancing in public places
unplanned concerts
dadaist crazy shit
weird public sculptures
unofficial performance art
creativity outside official channels...

let the great life changes commence.

 

[nomadthethird]

yes as long as the whole experience has helped with your development as a superior being thts all good.

The narcissism is like a brick wall.

 

[Slothrop]

here you go

bring back more ritual
go about life and fun with more of a trickster mentality
dress up as demons not on holloween
do inexplicable things without explanation
flash mobs
improvised music outside of concert halls
spontaneous dancing in public places
unplanned concerts
dadaist crazy shit
weird public sculptures
unofficial performance art
creativity outside official channels...

let the great life changes commence.

Not much of that is incompatible with a fundamentally rationalist outlook, IMO. Part of the problem with this thread has been the equation of 'scientific rationalism' (or empiricism or whatever) with staidness, lack of imagination, lack of a sense of fun, materialism, urbanism, all that sort of stuff.

This comes back to something Tea quoted in his first post - "isn't it enough to see that the garden is beatiful, without pretending that there are fairies at the bottom of it..."

 

[nomadthethird]

here you go

bring back more ritual
go about life and fun with more of a trickster mentality
dress up as demons not on holloween
do inexplicable things without explanation
flash mobs
improvised music outside of concert halls
spontaneous dancing in public places
unplanned concerts
dadaist crazy shit
weird public sculptures
unofficial performance art
creativity outside official channels...

let the great life changes commence.

We have that, it's called Bushwick, Brooklyn, and it's not that mysterious. It's just a bunch of annoying, rich, narcissistic spoiled brats who never had to have a real job.

Except now they dress up as zombies instead of demons.

 

[STN]

We have that, it's called Bushwick, Brooklyn, and it's not that mysterious. It's just a bunch of annoying, rich, narcissistic spoiled brats who never had to have a real job.

Except now they dress up as zombies instead of demons.

off-topic but christ i am sick of zombies.

 

[massrock]

When I was learning programming as a kid I enjoyed writing little Biomorphs (Blind Watchmaker) programs as per Dawkins. I found something quite magical about it.

 

[scottdisco]

here you go

bring back more ritual

i do this.

i call it "cleaning my teeth", "buying a newspaper", and "coffee first thing"

 

[massrock]

I'm finding it hard to see what the issue in this thread is exactly. Is it do with 'mysteries', or 'a sense of wonder', or with what is and isn't considered 'real'?

Cos obviously science has been trying quite hard to make mysteries go away for a long time and that's quite useful but at the same time there are obviously loads of gaps in what can be 'explained' by 'science'.

Like knowledge is a sphere and as it increases in size so does the surface area of contact with the unknown. I read that somewhere, it's a good image I think.

 

[nomadthethird]

it is people like this who create the bullshit dichotomies of this or that, science vs. religion.

the <strike>trendy religion-hating</strike> criticism of religious dogma among "progressives" bent on <strike>blaming all of humanity's ills</strike> dismantling the patriarchical, androcentric, misogynistic, and sexist beliefs inherent in nearly <strike>on spiritual practices</strike> every religion world wide, while naming science as some kind of <strike>infallible way forward</strike> imperfect but vastly preferable method of understanding the universe and coming to an understanding of a "generic" human subject, is a view <strike>equally myopic</strike> that, while it has its flaws, is anchored firmly in the ability to remain plastic and change over time as new information comes to light. In this sense, it is a position <strike>just as simple/closed-minded and solipsistic as</strike> that is fundamentally opposed those of the ignorant fundamentalist <strike>freaks</strike> dogmatists these rationalists rail against.

Fixed that for you.

 

[nomadthethird]

I'm finding it hard to see what the issue in this thread is exactly. Is it do with 'mysteries', or 'a sense of wonder', or with what is and isn't considered 'real'?

Cos obviously science has been trying quite hard to make mysteries go away for a long time and that's quite useful but at the same time there are obviously loads of gaps in what can be 'explained' by 'science'.

Like knowledge is a sphere and as it increases in size so does the surface area of contact with the unknown. I read that somewhere, it's a good image I think.

Not even sort of true. Not even vaguely true. Full of a bunch of tired strawmen.

 

[woops]

You know what I think is a rich and wonderful dimension of life? The Internet. No, seriously, for all the anime rape porn and 4chan

4chan is very ritualistic. Anime rape porn erm, probably is too.

 

[scottdisco]

Fixed that for you.

brilliant, Nomad. absolutely brilliant.

 

[nomadthethird]

yes hes annoying cos he basically dismissive of things that can't be explained even if they are carried out with rigorous scientific testing of the kind he uses to validate his arguments.
I saw an interesting article from a scientist who had been being working within some area of anomalous science, esp or something like that and dawkins had invited him on telly to ridicule him but then decided not to etc... . I really wish he wasn't the poster boy for rationalism cos he's so little fun, so unscientific in some ways.

First, Dawkins is by far not my favorite guy in the world, I've never read a single book by the guy, although I've read *about* his work and I've read his website. That said, he's not unscientific in the least.

There are uneducated people in the world who watch TV and that is basically where they get their information from, period. Shows like X-Files make it seem like there *could be* ghouls and apparitions. There aren't any. There is no proof of any. And most people who claim that they have some kind of "scientific" spin on the paranormal are total quacks and whack jobs and snake oil salesmen.

From a scientist's perspective, it's very sad to watch people exploit the ignorance of the poor for their own financial/personal gain.

 

[scottdisco]

my brother's partner (the one who suffers a lot from all sorts of sleep paralysis stuff) told me once they have read quite a bit that a lot of bedroom-set alien abduction claims/stories are quite possibly related to sleep paralysis and those sorts of issues. they explained very persuasively, clearly, and in depth (rather than me just mentioning it in a cursory sentence), but there might be something in that.

i always felt The X-Files (all the great televisual reasons aside!), if it had much extra-aesthetic appeal, was of course an interest in the paranormal, but also a distrust of govt/conspiracy theories, all that.

 

[mixed_biscuits]

I think sleep paralysis has been proposed to have been the cause of succubus/incubus experiences too.

 

[scottdisco]

I think sleep paralysis has been proposed to have been the cause of succubus/incubus experiences too.

sign me up for some of that!

 

[Mr. Tea]

I think sleep paralysis has been proposed to have been the cause of succubus/incubus experiences too.

Absolutely: yesterday's 'demon'/'hag' is today's 'alien'.

Anyway, I'd like to take zhao up on this:

what we need more of is empathy, connection, intuition, mystery, sensuality...

All of which are possible without believing in ghostly unseen forces manipulating the physical world when our backs are turned, aren't they? So I can't feel "empathy" or "sensuality" because I think the universe is by and large amenable to understanding in terms of science? That's pretty insulting - we're just back to your stupid cold-unfeeling-rationalists stereotype.