Hi there,
So it has dawned on me, that maybe there is something that Philosophy has to offer "Science". Science defines a method of falsifiability (according to Karl Popper), whereby hypothesis are entertained, tested and verified. The point I would make, is that if you know what manner of concept you are proceeding by: it becomes possible to predict, which phases you are going through, as you attempt to exercise that concept. Like if I know that I am going for a manual driver's license, I can project that I will need to practice driving in a manual car. There is a sticking point here, in that I believe at this point, that humanity is the sole audience we need to make our discoveries available to - but if you can swallow that, then what follows could help your humanity, in relation to science, immensely.
So the concept is "falsification", right? The question is: how does falsification "feel" that is when we are unthinking, relying only on intuition? From what our feelings tell us, we are able to sift scientific discoveries into two categories: creative or intuitive? Right? We either feed our desire for more science, or we hold it back. Neither of these feelings, is wrong - in the appropriate context. The point is, they give us a track to follow, whether we start by wanting creation or instinct to win out. The temptation is to be completely creative, which is art, or completely telling, which is not immediately wrong, but can be over-bearing (this is the sort of problem you get, when people only ever want the facts). So you see there is a choice, here, even at the beginning - which only Philosophy can save us from.
If Philosophy saves us, then, it does so by giving us the tool of ambivalence, knowing that the choice between creative and intuition has pitfalls either way. No one fact is total, no way of belief is without relevant exercise. This is the way of ambivalence. Being mindful then, we can begin by being ambivalent about which exercise we will undertake, when we discover the truth that we need (introducing the concept of truth, as a progression from the initial choice of discovery) - and we can also develop an appetite for fact, which counterintuitively will give us a reflex against totalising fact, by introducing more fact than may ultimately prove relevant. We are in other words called on to both remember that we have begun a search for the truth, following ambivalence, on the basis of more fact than we had (this gives fact the proper place and context it needs, to remain available in a useful way).
The wise thing to note here, is that Philosophy does not expect us to "discover" ambivalence, or change the truth, but rather to begin the intellectual pursuit of practicing ambivalence with respect to less fact, than the infinite "facts" possible. We are thereby, narrowing the range of fact, needed for review, focussing practice on the relationship between them, according to the label we give our science, in respective zones. Philosophy gives us this, because of a love of wisdom - as defines Philosophy (the word "philosophy"). As the observer in this context, given the motive of a love of Wisdom, we must discover by ambivalence, how the difference between facts changes. This we do, with the foreknowledge, that at some point, "everything will be discovered" *. Again, Philosophy is at the helm here, because it discusses "discovery" with Ethics, and arrives at the conclusion that endless fact would be immoral. The point being to prove the ambivalence Philosophy tendered at the outset (in response to the choice between creation and intuition), that is, in a way that brings us to the final conclusion necessary.
We do not need to discover "ambivalence" (and there is no small amount of sanity, in that), and one fact gives way to another, so Philosophy is called on a final time, to bring the expectation of discovery that is implicit in all this, to a conclusion: Philosophy releases the birds of discovery, to the clouds of imagination. In other words, Philosophy gives us "Insight". By weighing carefully how ambivalence reveals change in fact, and what muscle we gain at practicing it, we get insight into how these things better explain each other: it is a marriage of sorts, to the gift of weight, that informs everything found in the process, from beginning to end. In summary being: the ambivalent practice of insight. (Categories themselves proving boundaries, to those things that would continue endlessly without touching on a specific weight or change of weight). This gives our knowledge, its fullest expression.
Expression in Ambivalence: because we are not lead by anything but the one true emotion.
Expression in Practice: because we pointedly do not attempt to discover more of the self we already have (but rather bring it into subjection, to conceptual mastery).
Expression in Insight: because the language we keep around what we believe is fixed and finite (that we may discover the most about this life, of all the things that can be discovered, especially but not in exception to, what we are most capable of discovering).
The last point (Insight) being, especially strong at bringing nuance, to all that we discover, that we not merely repeat the path of past scientists, without divergence at some point - to fulfil the greater Wisdom of faithful restraint, from attempting to discover "everything", when what is asked that we discover "more than enough". The natural growth of the tree of knowledge, becoming a walking of its own, in which the path of discovery, is shared with all life, in the same ambivalence, that guides us to the irony of a natural conclusion, that despite all our saying more, more than enough has been said.
It is (the scientific process - Ambivalent, Practice of Insight) the journey of life discovering life, cosmos remaining cosmos for cosmos, yielding. From here we can begin the discernment of aptness. That is that the tools discovered by Science, can be reappropriated for Art and Entertainment, Industry and Manufacture, Refinement and Colour. Discovering for example that the eye sees no more than 16.7 million colours, does not mean that we give up trying to see? No! We are all the more intrigued what colour we will see and when! Do we predict sight? Can we give sight? These are just questions that begin to be asked. The fuller joy then giving us a process of discovery, that proclaims its own being - for all to feed on, and drink from **. These things form a pattern, that can be predicted, in principle, for those wishing to discover how close to the infinite, they truly are. Not without Philosophy, but by prevailing upon Philosophy to give us hints at where the Story of Stories is beginning to be told.
First comes Hope of Art, that the meaning of the Science be retained.
Second comes True Intention, that the discovery serve Mankind.
Third comes Base of Practice, that we humble ourselves to the task.
Fourth comes Mood of Culture, that the Observer be respected.
Fifth comes Price of Difference, that the truer culture within breathe life.
Sixth comes Madness of Determination, that the reworking of sanity into the saner be grasped.
Seventh comes Purity of Delivery, that the most exquisite of simplicity be communicated.
Eighth comes Sense of Finality, that the foreboding of the tests of insight not be lost.
Not that Joy does not retain Joy, that inclusion remain strong.
Not that Greater Hope does not retain Greater Hope, that legibility remain strong.
Not that Power of Interpretation, be thought its own justification.
Not that the Grace of God, not get the Glory (more again).
This is the mind that discovers, these are the words, of its Philosophy. Not that Philosophy has said nothing, but that it has said just enough to provoke more interest in discovery than less, and that the Discovery save - Man from Man, Word from Word, God from god.
Ambivalent Practice of Insight: Science!
*Discovered by the Holy Spirit
**Based on the words of Jesus Christ (the gospels, from memory)
So it has dawned on me, that maybe there is something that Philosophy has to offer "Science". Science defines a method of falsifiability (according to Karl Popper), whereby hypothesis are entertained, tested and verified. The point I would make, is that if you know what manner of concept you are proceeding by: it becomes possible to predict, which phases you are going through, as you attempt to exercise that concept. Like if I know that I am going for a manual driver's license, I can project that I will need to practice driving in a manual car. There is a sticking point here, in that I believe at this point, that humanity is the sole audience we need to make our discoveries available to - but if you can swallow that, then what follows could help your humanity, in relation to science, immensely.
So the concept is "falsification", right? The question is: how does falsification "feel" that is when we are unthinking, relying only on intuition? From what our feelings tell us, we are able to sift scientific discoveries into two categories: creative or intuitive? Right? We either feed our desire for more science, or we hold it back. Neither of these feelings, is wrong - in the appropriate context. The point is, they give us a track to follow, whether we start by wanting creation or instinct to win out. The temptation is to be completely creative, which is art, or completely telling, which is not immediately wrong, but can be over-bearing (this is the sort of problem you get, when people only ever want the facts). So you see there is a choice, here, even at the beginning - which only Philosophy can save us from.
If Philosophy saves us, then, it does so by giving us the tool of ambivalence, knowing that the choice between creative and intuition has pitfalls either way. No one fact is total, no way of belief is without relevant exercise. This is the way of ambivalence. Being mindful then, we can begin by being ambivalent about which exercise we will undertake, when we discover the truth that we need (introducing the concept of truth, as a progression from the initial choice of discovery) - and we can also develop an appetite for fact, which counterintuitively will give us a reflex against totalising fact, by introducing more fact than may ultimately prove relevant. We are in other words called on to both remember that we have begun a search for the truth, following ambivalence, on the basis of more fact than we had (this gives fact the proper place and context it needs, to remain available in a useful way).
The wise thing to note here, is that Philosophy does not expect us to "discover" ambivalence, or change the truth, but rather to begin the intellectual pursuit of practicing ambivalence with respect to less fact, than the infinite "facts" possible. We are thereby, narrowing the range of fact, needed for review, focussing practice on the relationship between them, according to the label we give our science, in respective zones. Philosophy gives us this, because of a love of wisdom - as defines Philosophy (the word "philosophy"). As the observer in this context, given the motive of a love of Wisdom, we must discover by ambivalence, how the difference between facts changes. This we do, with the foreknowledge, that at some point, "everything will be discovered" *. Again, Philosophy is at the helm here, because it discusses "discovery" with Ethics, and arrives at the conclusion that endless fact would be immoral. The point being to prove the ambivalence Philosophy tendered at the outset (in response to the choice between creation and intuition), that is, in a way that brings us to the final conclusion necessary.
We do not need to discover "ambivalence" (and there is no small amount of sanity, in that), and one fact gives way to another, so Philosophy is called on a final time, to bring the expectation of discovery that is implicit in all this, to a conclusion: Philosophy releases the birds of discovery, to the clouds of imagination. In other words, Philosophy gives us "Insight". By weighing carefully how ambivalence reveals change in fact, and what muscle we gain at practicing it, we get insight into how these things better explain each other: it is a marriage of sorts, to the gift of weight, that informs everything found in the process, from beginning to end. In summary being: the ambivalent practice of insight. (Categories themselves proving boundaries, to those things that would continue endlessly without touching on a specific weight or change of weight). This gives our knowledge, its fullest expression.
Expression in Ambivalence: because we are not lead by anything but the one true emotion.
Expression in Practice: because we pointedly do not attempt to discover more of the self we already have (but rather bring it into subjection, to conceptual mastery).
Expression in Insight: because the language we keep around what we believe is fixed and finite (that we may discover the most about this life, of all the things that can be discovered, especially but not in exception to, what we are most capable of discovering).
The last point (Insight) being, especially strong at bringing nuance, to all that we discover, that we not merely repeat the path of past scientists, without divergence at some point - to fulfil the greater Wisdom of faithful restraint, from attempting to discover "everything", when what is asked that we discover "more than enough". The natural growth of the tree of knowledge, becoming a walking of its own, in which the path of discovery, is shared with all life, in the same ambivalence, that guides us to the irony of a natural conclusion, that despite all our saying more, more than enough has been said.
It is (the scientific process - Ambivalent, Practice of Insight) the journey of life discovering life, cosmos remaining cosmos for cosmos, yielding. From here we can begin the discernment of aptness. That is that the tools discovered by Science, can be reappropriated for Art and Entertainment, Industry and Manufacture, Refinement and Colour. Discovering for example that the eye sees no more than 16.7 million colours, does not mean that we give up trying to see? No! We are all the more intrigued what colour we will see and when! Do we predict sight? Can we give sight? These are just questions that begin to be asked. The fuller joy then giving us a process of discovery, that proclaims its own being - for all to feed on, and drink from **. These things form a pattern, that can be predicted, in principle, for those wishing to discover how close to the infinite, they truly are. Not without Philosophy, but by prevailing upon Philosophy to give us hints at where the Story of Stories is beginning to be told.
First comes Hope of Art, that the meaning of the Science be retained.
Second comes True Intention, that the discovery serve Mankind.
Third comes Base of Practice, that we humble ourselves to the task.
Fourth comes Mood of Culture, that the Observer be respected.
Fifth comes Price of Difference, that the truer culture within breathe life.
Sixth comes Madness of Determination, that the reworking of sanity into the saner be grasped.
Seventh comes Purity of Delivery, that the most exquisite of simplicity be communicated.
Eighth comes Sense of Finality, that the foreboding of the tests of insight not be lost.
Not that Joy does not retain Joy, that inclusion remain strong.
Not that Greater Hope does not retain Greater Hope, that legibility remain strong.
Not that Power of Interpretation, be thought its own justification.
Not that the Grace of God, not get the Glory (more again).
This is the mind that discovers, these are the words, of its Philosophy. Not that Philosophy has said nothing, but that it has said just enough to provoke more interest in discovery than less, and that the Discovery save - Man from Man, Word from Word, God from god.
Ambivalent Practice of Insight: Science!
*Discovered by the Holy Spirit
**Based on the words of Jesus Christ (the gospels, from memory)
