Quote:
Originally Posted by Megan  Regarding science and religion being evolutionary drivers of each other; thinking of the world in terms of dynamic axes, rather than conflicting polarities; the oscillations of Zhabotinsky soup, etc....
Eric's quote:
That is just so rich. Reminds me of a bunch of things. Like the dynamic yin-yang symbol: 
Also reminds me of the double-triangle Star of David (Mogan David), which is dynamic in a similar way to the yin-yang symbol above. There's a perfect animation somewhere on the Net--for now, here's the plain symbol: 
Also reminds me of colliding galaxies:
Perhaps when our scientific imaginations and our spiritual imaginations become vast enough, they can "interaccomodate one another in non-interfering frequency ways" as the dancing galaxies do.
Bucky's words also remind me of the cerebral nasal cycle:
In the end, the quarrel between religion and science may just be our right brains and left brains working desynchronously, and writ large at the cultural level.
The fact is that scientific knowledge and spiritual knowledge are already married, as Muktananda keeps reminding us. |
Megan, thanks for leaving these breadcrumbs.
I wanted to respond, but rather, chose to begin my deep dive into various domains of artificial intelligence - from which I have returned.
...and remain intrigued by this dialog.
Does epistemic arrogance = cognitive bias.
Is “The world we live in is vastly different from the world we think we live in.” ?
What is implied by precessional side effects and evolutionary oscillators ?
Why do we 'need' to be right about spiritual stuff ?
Originally, I thought this thread was limited to the passionate rebuttal(
actor-observer bias) of Dawkins((apparent) megalomania), but began to question if the effort of this discussion simply manifests the
Observer-expectancy effect, and began to question if we can objectively ascertain if our
thinking is capable of producing the
right answer.
Is cognitive bias implicit and is ego implict and do they conspire to allow our fallacies to deceive us into thinking we are good at thinking ?
But, OK - some very cool things have happened since we began exploring these fascinating concepts. Perhaps we were feeling speculative about sacred geometry and colliding universes. These themes continue to emerge in new
TOEs.
Are we destined to use
geometry as a unifying language/thought ?
...there's a lot left to do.
Best wishes,
Eric
there's a lot more to do...