Joined: Sep. 2006
|Quote (skeptic @ Jan. 10 2007,09:02)|
|I've taken us far from Scary's initial question so I'm going to continue this on my own. I did want to make concluding comment. It would seem that this viewpoint would deny one from obtaining knowledge of any objective sort. The words are just symbols that inadequately describe reality and you must experience something to actually know it but you cannot share that with anyone else because they haven't experienced what you have and the symbols limit your ability to share a common experience accurately. Sounds like each creates their own reality and it is unique. Anyway, back to Scary's discussion.|
P.S. Lenny, if by "authority" you mean an objective reality in which existence is or it isn't of specific essences whether we know it or not, then yes, I subscribe to that. If you're referring to an Authority Figure then you're still offbase.
You give up too easily skeptic. From an independent observer I can make the following summary by analogy. This is only my words and my view at present.
Early man saw lightning, heard thunder, and felt rain. Processes (reality) that could not be understood or duplicated by the people experiencing these things. Words were created to describe these phenomenae but attributions to the "creative" powers were brought in to calm the (natural?) fear of the unknown that the masses exhibited. This poorly put together analogy is (I think) what Lenny is alluding to when he states your perception is locked into authority. You "need" to have something spelled out as omnipotent/all-powerful or over-arching to make sense of everything else.
When Galileo discovered the Jovian moons the reality of the moons didn't change, only the perception of Galileo to the universe around him. Galileo's words and writings were purely an attempt to convey meaning through the "Galileo reality filter" to those around him. The church attempt to squash this message was just a case of differences in interpretation, not denial of the overall reality. The "reality of the Jovian moons" never changed regardless of what message the masses heard.
Now we can stretch this analogy to the breaking point. The same could be said of any new discovery in the universe. By simple extension we can project that all such attempts by anyone (let's just say human for now) to explain any type of perception (reality based OR OTHERWISE) is purely a word jumble attempt to convey that persons projection to the rest of humanity. The words have no value, only the "reality" that they try and describe has value. BUT this "value" is only "real" to the witness of the reality described. What muddy prose to describe an internal process.
Science enters the scene because it offers a neutral venue to describe reality that others can reproduce and experience for themselves. I can describe gravity in many words, but probably the most "value" comes when I say that at the earth's surface it has an accelleration of 9.8 m/s^2. I just gave you (and everyone else) a chance to not only interpret my word jumble that describes gravity but also a concrete "value" that you can take and reproduce and experience in your own internal word jumble that you create yourself.
Extend this thought to the unknown and unmeasureable aspects of the universe, human condition, butterfly thoughts, etc... and you can see that the concepts of a "higher authority" start to make no sense to the "reality" as it already exists. The "higher authority" is only a projection of those who perceive it that way.