Darlingtonia Californica and heraclitus.

[David T]

Heraclitus said that nature loves to hide. He also said that the logos is common but everyone seems to have there own private understanding. I would go into the cobra lilly more here but this isn't a botanical post. My question can the religion vs science debates be understood as two flies inside the cobra lily arguing? Neither seems to generally give any thought that nature can be very illusionary in certain ways. If rorschach dominates contempory bible reading, a something we created, how much more rorschachIan may nature be a something we did not create? The relationship between the fly and the plant is a facinating one of symbiosis and morphology two topics that seem to be extremely difficult in science and religion curiously. So can nature generate illusions?

 

[allfoak]

View attachment 16102
Heraclitus said that nature loves to hide. He also said that the logos is common but everyone seems to have there own private understanding. I would go into the cobra lilly more here but this isn't a botanical post. My question can the religion vs science debates be understood as two flies inside the cobra lily arguing? Neither seems to generally give any thought that nature can be very illusionary in certain ways. If rorschach dominates contempory bible reading, a something we created, how much more rorschachIan may nature be a something we did not create? The relationship between the fly and the plant is a facinating one of symbiosis and morphology two topics that seem to be extremely difficult in science and religion curiously. So can nature generate illusions?

I am of the perspective that the illusion is not generated by nature but rather is built into the system.

 

[David T]

View attachment 16102
Heraclitus said that nature loves to hide. He also said that the logos is common but everyone seems to have there own private understanding. I would go into the cobra lilly more here but this isn't a botanical post. My question can the religion vs science debates be understood as two flies inside the cobra lily arguing? Neither seems to generally give any thought that nature can be very illusionary in certain ways. If rorschach dominates contempory bible reading, a something we created, how much more rorschachIan may nature be a something we did not create? The relationship between the fly and the plant is a facinating one of symbiosis and morphology two topics that seem to be extremely difficult in science and religion curiously. So can nature generate illusions?

Excellent I intentionAlly wrote in a telelogical way for a reason. Will write later after work. Right now standing the rain directing some framing

 

[David T]

Well apparently the topic wasn't interesting. i should be posting will jesus return soon. or is the rapture close, or did the bible mean, or evolution proves, or the bible proves!!!.

 

[siti]

@David T - very interesting post. I was reminded of Archie J. Bahm's translation of the opening sentence of the Tao Te Ching: "Nature can never be completely described, for such a description of Nature would have to duplicate Nature."

That means that neither science nor religion (nor any other way of looking at the world) can possibly have a complete picture. And we have to remember too, as Alfred Korzybski put it: "The map is not the territory". Unfortunately, as Gregory Bateson pointed out all we have is "maps of maps".

Korzybski decided that the biggest problem was the inappropriate use of the verb "to be". And there is nowhere that this is more starkly apparent than in the religion vs science "wars".

For example, the idea that the Bible describes the creation of the universe as a process taking place over a period of a few days is interpreted to imply that the world was created in seven days - and I don't just mean by biblical literalists but also by their opponents. Similarly, applying general relativity to the origin of the universe suggests that an apparent singularity emerges as the starting point, and this is taken by many to mean that the universe actually once was a singularity. Quite apart from the philosophical and scientific absurdity of such notions, it seems obvious (to me) that both of these seemingly untenable positions really arise from our interpreting our mental "maps" as "the territory", the "name" we gave something as the "thing named" - or to put it in the context of your question: the illusion that (our) nature has given us as the reality itself. Then we proceed to argue as if the model (scientific or religious) were the thing itself. Of course they are not - our models of reality - scientific, religious, philosophical...are the illusions that nature has provided for us - the patterns that appear from one angle like this and from another like that. Its like looking at the same mountain from different sides or seeing pictures in the clouds. It is Rorschachian - but it seems like its either really important or really fun - depending on one's preference - to argue about them anyway - and then to declare our favourite pattern of incomplete information to be "the truth"! And that's probably the biggest illusion (or delusion) of all.

 

[David T]

siti awesomeness. yes i see that nonsense as well. but why? that also interests me.

@David T - very interesting post. I was reminded of Archie J. Bahm's translation of the opening sentence of the Tao Te Ching: "Nature can never be completely described, for such a description of Nature would have to duplicate Nature."

That means that neither science nor religion (nor any other way of looking at the world) can possibly have a complete picture. And we have to remember too, as Alfred Korzybski put it: "The map is not the territory". Unfortunately, as Gregory Bateson pointed out all we have is "maps of maps".

Korzybski decided that the biggest problem was the inappropriate use of the verb "to be". And there is nowhere that this is more starkly apparent than in the religion vs science "wars".

For example, the idea that the Bible describes the creation of the universe as a process taking place over a period of a few days is interpreted to imply that the world was created in seven days - and I don't just mean by biblical literalists but also by their opponents. Similarly, applying general relativity to the origin of the universe suggests that an apparent singularity emerges as the starting point, and this is taken by many to mean that the universe actually once was a singularity. Quite apart from the philosophical and scientific absurdity of such notions, it seems obvious (to me) that both of these seemingly untenable positions really arise from our interpreting our mental "maps" as "the territory", the "name" we gave something as the "thing named" - or to put it in the context of your question: the illusion that (our) nature has given us as the reality itself. Then we proceed to argue as if the model (scientific or religious) were the thing itself. Of course they are not - our models of reality - scientific, religious, philosophical...are the illusions that nature has provided for us - the patterns that appear from one angle like this and from another like that. Its like looking at the same mountain from different sides or seeing pictures in the clouds. It is Rorschachian - but it seems like its either really important or really fun - depending on one's preference - to argue about them anyway - and then to declare our favourite pattern of incomplete information to be "the truth"! And that's probably the biggest illusion (or delusion) of all.

Siti Awesome. funny you mentioned the Tao Te Ching . 25 years ago at the ripe old age of 38 a poet's book from ancient china landed in my lap, in my very darkest hour, and somehow that poet reached across 2,600 years and said "you are ok".. When I write "heraclitus, I don't make any literal separations between lao Tzu, buddha, nor Heraclitus. They are the three ancients I am very attuned to. So you picked up on the resonant harmony between lao tzu(s) and heraclitus. Resonance and cognitive dissonance is interesting to me. LIke harmonious music vs OMG that is like is so such a wrong cord i can't tolerate it. Take a look around the site is anyone harmonizing with nature or is it arguments about nature? very disturbing.


BTW I live on the oregon coast and the california pitcher plant has been found as far north as my home county Tillamook oregon. It is a rather facinating creature in so many ways. I live in one of the most amazing magical places in the world. and good luck getting me to leave!!!. our native birds seagulls are smarter than our president.

 

[David T]

I am of the perspective that the illusion is not generated by nature but rather is built into the system.

yes. It's not a intellectual action but I do find the term "built in" curiously teleological!!! interesting if we try and personalize nature it becomes teleological, but if we even describe it as mechanical system it also takes on teleological form we might not been aware of Science does this constantly as much as religion. I just call it "NORMAL". my biggest insult .are you NORMAL OMG sorry about that!. LOL. btw I laugh a lot please laugh we tend to take ourselves way way to seriously.

 

[siti]

siti awesomeness. yes i see that nonsense as well. but why? that also interests me.

I'm not sure it is nonsense - just because it is illusion or even delusion doesn't make it nonsense - we don't value poetry or art for its factuality (or at least if we do we have probably missed the point) - we value it because it reveals in its creative illusoriness (is that even a word?) a glimpse of 'truth' - it itself, of course, is not 'truth' but it tantalizes us with the promise of 'truth'. Science does that too - and religion. But with these it is much easier to lose sight of the illusory nature of the 'image' and imagine that we have actually discovered 'truth'. And I guess we argue, fuss and fight about them because we also have an innate desire to test our images against the others to see which of the teasing hints of 'truth' are closest to the real 'truth'. I don't think we can help it - only moderate it. But in the end, I'm guessing that the closest approach to nature's reality we can hope for has to be felt rather than merely thought and synthesized rather than analyzed. Nature, after all, happens all at once - not in discrete bits. Its a symphony not just a sequence of notes. But being able to read the music as well as hear it should enhance our appreciation not detract from it. That can only happen when we really grasp that the symphony is as real as the notes that it is composed of and vice versa.

 

[David T]

I'm not sure it is nonsense - just because it is illusion or even delusion doesn't make it nonsense - we don't value poetry or art for its factuality (or at least if we do we have probably missed the point) - we value it because it reveals in its creative illusoriness (is that even a word?) a glimpse of 'truth' - it itself, of course, is not 'truth' but it tantalizes us with the promise of 'truth'. Science does that too - and religion. But with these it is much easier to lose sight of the illusory nature of the 'image' and imagine that we have actually discovered 'truth'. And I guess we argue, fuss and fight about them because we also have an innate desire to test our images against the others to see which of the teasing hints of 'truth' are closest to the real 'truth'. I don't think we can help it - only moderate it. But in the end, I'm guessing that the closest approach to nature's reality we can hope for has to be felt rather than merely thought and synthesized rather than analyzed. Nature, after all, happens all at once - not in discrete bits. Its a symphony not just a sequence of notes. But being able to read the music as well as hear it should enhance our appreciation not detract from it. That can only happen when we really grasp that the symphony is as real as the notes that it is composed of and vice versa.

It's the scientism I was referring to and yes I agree with what you wrote