Quote:
Originally Posted by Moontanman
True but the brights do not require every one think exactly the way every one else does. It's just a way for people who do not include the supernatural or other views based on anything other than the pursuit of the truth.
|
The area of contention seems to be on the definition of 'truth,' or worse, the means by which to arrive at the truth.
This is not new. We've inherited the problem from our forefathers.
In effect, the controversy has continued and has been disputed on all fronts and in all camps, in the interpretation of observations, in the conceptual theoretical context, and in the context of the Church (not to elaborate on the associated sex, greed, money, power (and subsequent wars), or other nonphysical fronts).
And despite this dismal vantage-point it was still hoped that observations would embody the
truth. That is why the Vatican set up an observatory (see quote from the Pope above). Truth—the absolute unification of the subjective and the objective—could only become finally perceptible by way of
internal development and by way of
outward development, in individuals and in science, respectively. For them, however, cosmology could only become ‘complete’ by overstepping the bounds of science and passing from the sphere of physics into that of Truth, just as the big bang had given way to new physics and then new philosophy before
spirit could come to predominate. Such a move into the ‘sphere of spirit’ was possible for individuals, but it would mean the end of science.
From a scientific perspective the ideal of ‘absolute’ internal realization merely preserves the duality of mind and matter, spirit and nature, keeping the two apart. This could also be articulated in different ways, through a chain of associations: wave and corpuscle, velocity and position, vacuum field and angular momentum, mass and energy, time and space, real and imaginary, internal and external world, individual and universal. And there are more of those associations one might call poles apart, or diametrically opposed antitheses, or even equivalences: objective and subjective, rational and irrational, life and death, past and future, voluntary and involuntary. Some might call the divide between them a continuum, thus there is flux that allows the transforming of one to the other.
The real ‘absolute opposites,’ however, would be, say, pole and
non-pole.
The brights represent, at least for me, and in an abstract sence, a 'non-pole.'
It is precisely because the duality mind vs matter (or in another way, the opposition between the supernatural and the natural) can be vacated, if the thought process that leads to the supernatural can be explained in physical terms. Though this objective remain hitherto elusive.
The attempt must be made through methodological scientific expression to demonstrate that the complex human attributes that lead to the belief in the supernatural, and that manifest themselves as creative thought, feeling, will and awareness—often regarded as distinct from the physical body—are inextricably attached to the fundamental laws of nature. And as such, products of pure imagination can be rationalized in logical and consistent physical terms.
Edit: That will be my goal as an active member of brights.
Something has only just begun.
CC
