Quote:
|
Hopefully you remember the context, and if not then you can look back there. The connection was finally made in my head and I think, to paraphrase your statement, you meant to say that all human development and progress is dependent upon intuitive leaps, and that without it, humankind would not be able to move forward. You claim that N is really the only factor that contributes to such progress. (To counter ahead of time any responses from S's here, I'll claim that without S each individual human would not survive in the immediate present, making advancement a moot point.)
|
My point was that by placing so much imperative on your senses you are ignoring huge part of the reality. But I understand that this is simply because of the way you are built.
Point of the example with nuclear energy was that the source of it is invisible for the senses. But entire thing exists, it is there, you don't see it but you can use it.
Plus, the logic that is behind it has "nothing" to do with common sense.
But if you want to talk about the progress and S/N it is fine with me.
For the start, you did not get it what I was saying.
My point is that for the progress we need both. But in the last 20 years things are going more toward N because of technology and advanced scinence. The problem in modern times is that N can understand the S sphere of interests but it is not good at it.
While S is lost in the world of N. What means that we can't close the circle anymore.
I think that few thousand years ago the entire S/N thing was more balanced. Because there was less abstract things for Ns to play with.
So differnces between us were smaller what means that communication was better/easier.
For example, what are the odds that ancient philosopher attends local horse race and what are the odds that modern astronomer enojoys in a good football game?
I think that the odds are not equal.
It looks to me this rapture will be growing with time and it could create serious problems for this world. Actually it already does.
For example look at the biggest controversy of our time - global warming
I think that it is real and it is much worse that people think it is.
The point here is not global warming it is thinking about it.
As the words say it must be global and it must be warming.
But it can happen that you have global cooling efect in some time. What is totally normal form perspective of physics.(actually it can be any other way) But that does not mean that global warming is not happening.
If you use common sense on the part I have just typed it doesn't make any sense at all. So it is logical to presume that the entire thing is BS.
Even the N that is not into it will say it is BS. That is because you need so much special knowledge to understand this, that you will need to devote your entire life to understand it.
Why am I saying this ?
If you spent years on building yourself in one direction there will be no way that you can talk about it with people that haven't done the same.
Because of that you get the scenario like the example with global warming and cooling. The actual problem is that the language(s) can't describe some things in a few words. In the reality the process of global warming does not exist. It is concept created by language.
Even if you use climate change the problem is still there.
This is because climate can't be in any other state then change.
So you must say that we have "Rapid climate change".
The next question is "I still don't see the problem with it? then I say because the name of the problem should be "Rapid climate change with the very bad outcome"
This means that we have gone from original two words "Global warming" to seven words" Rapid climate change with the very bad outcome"
The next catch is that the biggest problems of climate change are not about the air. What means that the name is wrong again.
I will stop here because I think that the point is proven.
The conclusion is that we have so much problems in communication because
S needs to classify everything in solid manner.
But the problem is that it can't be done for some things, as I have proven in this post.
So S has large problems with things that you can't classify or specify.
In the situation that you have wrong name for something it is inevitable that you do not understand it (at least not fully).
I hope that all this makes at least some sense to you.
Quote:
|
I don't want to go too far off-topic by discussing your claim. My point is simply that it took me a few times of reading it before I understood your deeper meaning there. This would be a result of my slow-working N, don't you think?
|
In the case that I know the answer I would have never opened this thread.