[time 630] Re: [time 618]: Rationalism is another name of the anthropocentric attitude.

Matti Pitkanen (matpitka@pcu.helsinki.fi)
Fri, 27 Aug 1999 20:22:08 +0300 (EET DST)

On Sat, 28 Aug 1999, Hitoshi Kitada wrote:

> Dear Matti et al,
> On Thursday, August 26, 1999 3:18 PM, Matti Pitkanen
> <matpitka@pcu.helsinki.fi> wrote:
> Subject: [time 618] Re: [time 616] Re: [time 611] Re: [time 610] Fwd
> Marmet's reply #2again
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 25 Aug 1999, Stephen P. King wrote:
> >
> > > Dear Matti and Paul and Bill,
> > >
> > > Just a few philosophical comments...
> > >
> > > Matti Pitkanen wrote:
> > > >


> I understand by your postings that you are a believer of the Modern Science
> initiated by Galileo Galilei.

I am not believer of modern science as such. Modern science believes
in single objective reality behind our observations. As also do you but
on different grounds perhaps! Quantum jump between quantum histories
picture forces to give up this picture. The objective reality of
Galilei is replaced by a new one in each moment of consciousness. Universe
is reconstructing itself all the time. This is genuine creativity.

> But consider what science is. It explains the
> world _for_ us, i.e. for human beings' convenience. It does not serve other
> creatures and existences. It is just useful for human beings; it helps us
> to make/produce things and lets us be able to operate other things out
> there, but it would not help other creatures and might be even harmful to
> them. Science is a human knowledge that is made to be useful just for
> humans, and rationalism is another name of this anthropocentric attitude of
> the Modern Age. Ratio is as it means the ratio/counting by human beings.

Science is also useful. But this is not the sole purpose of science.
I wish I could reproduce what Einstein wrote about his motivations.
Personally I have not even bothered to invent answers
to questions like 'Is is any use to anyone: have this any applications?'.
Why to pretend: I am doing this because it is so incredibly fascinating
to wander into unknown worlds. I see science as tool for personal growth, as
evolution of consciousness: it is not the only tool and it can be
dangerous unless one realizes that it overemphasizes the rational mode of
consciousness. Equally well music could be the tao: I greatly
enjoy to hear people dedicated to music to tell about their life.

> Science is a system of knowledge to tell us how to behave to avoid dangers
> and to get benefit from nature. It is just a knowledge of humans'
> surviving, not the understanding of the world for the general beings.
> In other words, science is from its birth an anthropocentric production of
> human beings. This explains the scientists' favor with the anthropic
> principle. There is no other way for humans' _knowledge_ than to be
> anthropocentric, for the purpose of humans' knowledge is to serve humans'
> convenience, while _understanding_ is different.
Amusingly, anthropic principle is necessary when one postulates
single objective reality and wants to understand why it is just that
particular solution of field equations (or whatever). In TGD every quantum
jump produces new objective reality: no need for anthropic principle
anymore. Subjective time development scans through all possible universes.
Reality is this because infinite sequences of destructions and creations
led just to this reality. It is result of selections.

> The characteristic of the western culture/civilization in the Modern Age is
> its power to control nature. This was a success of the rationalism in the
> short run.

> But they forget that there is the inner world, the world NOT "out there."
> At least staying on the level of what you can see and touch, the
> rationalism works well for you and gives you many conveniences by letting
> you exploit what you want from others and nature. But the world cannot
> afford to serve you anymore and would not be tolerant to your further
> exploitation.

Here we agree competely. Rationalism alone is not sufficient.
But rationalist mode of conciousness must 'prove' scientifically the
reality of the possibility of other mode.

> The age is changing. The pursuit of the anthropocentric/rationalistic
> knowledge would not be our future. The necessary thought now is the
> understanding of the inner world. No further ability of controlling the
> outside would be necessary. It would lack the balance of our understanding
> and would ruin our world outwardly as well as inwardly: Remind what changes
> science brought to the earth in the Modern Age. They were actually
> convenient for us, but do you not feel they are _too_ convenient _just_ for
> humans?
They are not convenient even for humans now. The dogmas of
effiveness, growth and techonological progress are destroying the great
achievements of this century: growth in its all forms has become its own
justification and destroying the quality of life.

> The pursuit of the understanding of the inner world is now needed to
> recover the balance of understanding which has been lost through the biased
> pursuit of the anthropocentric rationalistic Modern Science.

I agree warm heartedly. I am seriously studying models for
englightened selves as asymptotics of subjective time development
dictated by strong NMP(;-). I simply 'know' that this is what
respected theoretical physicists will do after few decades while
smiling to my first naive attempts in this direction. The temptation is
irresistible. Only the marriage of rationalism and mystics is what heals
the schitzophreny that human kind is suffering.


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Oct 16 1999 - 00:36:31 JST