I'm reading a marvellous book at the moment; "Doubt: A History", by
Jennifer Michael Hecht (HarperCollins, NY, 2004).
http://www.amazon.com/Doubt-Doubters-Innovation-Jefferson-Dickinson/d... In it the author, an historian and poet, takes an eloquent trip
through the whole history of ideas, from the pre-Socratics and the
Buddha to Salman Rushdie and the Brights, tracing the story of
questioning certainties throughout the ages. She quotes Pierre
Charron, a student of Michel de Montaigne, who wrote in his book "Of
Wisdom" (1601) concerning doubt:
"It alone can provide true repose and security of our spirits. Have
all the greatest and most noble philosophers and wise men who have
professed doubt been in a state of anxiety and suffering? But they
say: to doubt, to consider both points of view, to put off a decision,
is this not painful? I reply, it is indeed for fools, but not for wise
men. It is painful for people who cannot stand freedom, for those who
are presumptuous, partisan, passionate and who, obstinately attached
to their opinions, arrogantly condemn all others ... Such people, in
truth, know nothing. They do not even know what it is to know
something."
(Hecht, p. 307)
It's a marvellous pageant of priests, philosophers and poets,
scientists, heretics and oddballs who all dared to "step outside the
box" and question the conventional wisdoms of their environments,
frequently at the cost of intense internal spiritual suffering and
external opprobrium and persecution. Not all of them are atheists, she
includes figures such as Jesus and Augustine as well, but all of them
are people who dared to doubt, to question.
It strikes me that Charron's view of wise searchers as those who dare
"to doubt, to consider both points of view, to put off a decision" is
not a bad aphorism for us here on ME.
It's a marvellous pageant of priests, philosophers and poets,
scientists, heretics and oddballs who all dared to "step outside the
box" and question the conventional wisdoms of their environments,
frequently at the cost of intense internal spiritual suffering and
external opprobrium and persecution. Not all of them are atheists, she
includes figures such as Jesus and Augustine as well, but all of them
are people who dared to doubt, to question.
What I would like to know is why when you step out of the comfort box and
challenge idea and there is the internal doubt whay ther is so much
suffering and turmoil. especially when you know you are right.
Allan
On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 9:40 AM, frantheman <francis.h...@googlemail.com>wrote:
> I'm reading a marvellous book at the moment; "Doubt: A History", by
> Jennifer Michael Hecht (HarperCollins, NY, 2004).
> http://www.amazon.com/Doubt-Doubters-Innovation-Jefferson-Dickinson/d... > In it the author, an historian and poet, takes an eloquent trip
> through the whole history of ideas, from the pre-Socratics and the
> Buddha to Salman Rushdie and the Brights, tracing the story of
> questioning certainties throughout the ages. She quotes Pierre
> Charron, a student of Michel de Montaigne, who wrote in his book "Of
> Wisdom" (1601) concerning doubt:
> "It alone can provide true repose and security of our spirits. Have
> all the greatest and most noble philosophers and wise men who have
> professed doubt been in a state of anxiety and suffering? But they
> say: to doubt, to consider both points of view, to put off a decision,
> is this not painful? I reply, it is indeed for fools, but not for wise
> men. It is painful for people who cannot stand freedom, for those who
> are presumptuous, partisan, passionate and who, obstinately attached
> to their opinions, arrogantly condemn all others ... Such people, in
> truth, know nothing. They do not even know what it is to know
> something."
> (Hecht, p. 307)
> It's a marvellous pageant of priests, philosophers and poets,
> scientists, heretics and oddballs who all dared to "step outside the
> box" and question the conventional wisdoms of their environments,
> frequently at the cost of intense internal spiritual suffering and
> external opprobrium and persecution. Not all of them are atheists, she
> includes figures such as Jesus and Augustine as well, but all of them
> are people who dared to doubt, to question.
> It strikes me that Charron's view of wise searchers as those who dare
> "to doubt, to consider both points of view, to put off a decision" is
> not a bad aphorism for us here on ME.
Aaah, but do you KNOW you're right? Are you SURE you're right? What
Charron and others (including e.g. Marcus Aurelius, or - according to
some interpretations - the Buddha) are talking about is a basic
questioning attitude, living with and in doubt, which, at a certain
stage, brings its own contentment/enlightenment at a deeper level -
while the process continues ... Openness ...
Francis
On 7 Nov., 11:18, iam deheretic <dehere...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It's a marvellous pageant of priests, philosophers and poets,
> scientists, heretics and oddballs who all dared to "step outside the
> box" and question the conventional wisdoms of their environments,
> frequently at the cost of intense internal spiritual suffering and
> external opprobrium and persecution. Not all of them are atheists, she
> includes figures such as Jesus and Augustine as well, but all of them
> are people who dared to doubt, to question.
> What I would like to know is why when you step out of the comfort box and
> challenge idea and there is the internal doubt whay ther is so much
> suffering and turmoil. especially when you know you are right.
> Allan
> On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 9:40 AM, frantheman <francis.h...@googlemail.com>wrote:
> > I'm reading a marvellous book at the moment; "Doubt: A History", by
> > Jennifer Michael Hecht (HarperCollins, NY, 2004).
> >http://www.amazon.com/Doubt-Doubters-Innovation-Jefferson-Dickinson/d...
> > In it the author, an historian and poet, takes an eloquent trip
> > through the whole history of ideas, from the pre-Socratics and the
> > Buddha to Salman Rushdie and the Brights, tracing the story of
> > questioning certainties throughout the ages. She quotes Pierre
> > Charron, a student of Michel de Montaigne, who wrote in his book "Of
> > Wisdom" (1601) concerning doubt:
> > "It alone can provide true repose and security of our spirits. Have
> > all the greatest and most noble philosophers and wise men who have
> > professed doubt been in a state of anxiety and suffering? But they
> > say: to doubt, to consider both points of view, to put off a decision,
> > is this not painful? I reply, it is indeed for fools, but not for wise
> > men. It is painful for people who cannot stand freedom, for those who
> > are presumptuous, partisan, passionate and who, obstinately attached
> > to their opinions, arrogantly condemn all others ... Such people, in
> > truth, know nothing. They do not even know what it is to know
> > something."
> > (Hecht, p. 307)
> > It's a marvellous pageant of priests, philosophers and poets,
> > scientists, heretics and oddballs who all dared to "step outside the
> > box" and question the conventional wisdoms of their environments,
> > frequently at the cost of intense internal spiritual suffering and
> > external opprobrium and persecution. Not all of them are atheists, she
> > includes figures such as Jesus and Augustine as well, but all of them
> > are people who dared to doubt, to question.
> > It strikes me that Charron's view of wise searchers as those who dare
> > "to doubt, to consider both points of view, to put off a decision" is
> > not a bad aphorism for us here on ME.
I know I am right ,, I and sure I am right,, everything I see points to the
fact I am right. yet there is that very ultra tine possibility that I could
be wrong . That is very frightening, probably terrifying can be a better
description. I am thinking as I am writing this is maybe the real problem
comes from knowing the extremely high stakes that are involved because you
are dealing in the realm of the soul and me I really don't like gambling
and high stakes are frightening , to me there is no higher stake.
Allan
On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 2:40 PM, frantheman <francis.h...@googlemail.com>wrote:
> Aaah, but do you KNOW you're right? Are you SURE you're right? What
> Charron and others (including e.g. Marcus Aurelius, or - according to
> some interpretations - the Buddha) are talking about is a basic
> questioning attitude, living with and in doubt, which, at a certain
> stage, brings its own contentment/enlightenment at a deeper level -
> while the process continues ... Openness ...
> Francis
> On 7 Nov., 11:18, iam deheretic <dehere...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Interesting
> > It's a marvellous pageant of priests, philosophers and poets,
> > scientists, heretics and oddballs who all dared to "step outside the
> > box" and question the conventional wisdoms of their environments,
> > frequently at the cost of intense internal spiritual suffering and
> > external opprobrium and persecution. Not all of them are atheists, she
> > includes figures such as Jesus and Augustine as well, but all of them
> > are people who dared to doubt, to question.
> > What I would like to know is why when you step out of the comfort box and
> > challenge idea and there is the internal doubt whay ther is so much
> > suffering and turmoil. especially when you know you are right.
> > Allan
> > On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 9:40 AM, frantheman <francis.h...@googlemail.com
> >wrote:
> > > I'm reading a marvellous book at the moment; "Doubt: A History", by
> > > Jennifer Michael Hecht (HarperCollins, NY, 2004).
> > >http://www.amazon.com/Doubt-Doubters-Innovation-Jefferson-Dickinson/d.
> ..
> > > In it the author, an historian and poet, takes an eloquent trip
> > > through the whole history of ideas, from the pre-Socratics and the
> > > Buddha to Salman Rushdie and the Brights, tracing the story of
> > > questioning certainties throughout the ages. She quotes Pierre
> > > Charron, a student of Michel de Montaigne, who wrote in his book "Of
> > > Wisdom" (1601) concerning doubt:
> > > "It alone can provide true repose and security of our spirits. Have
> > > all the greatest and most noble philosophers and wise men who have
> > > professed doubt been in a state of anxiety and suffering? But they
> > > say: to doubt, to consider both points of view, to put off a decision,
> > > is this not painful? I reply, it is indeed for fools, but not for wise
> > > men. It is painful for people who cannot stand freedom, for those who
> > > are presumptuous, partisan, passionate and who, obstinately attached
> > > to their opinions, arrogantly condemn all others ... Such people, in
> > > truth, know nothing. They do not even know what it is to know
> > > something."
> > > (Hecht, p. 307)
> > > It's a marvellous pageant of priests, philosophers and poets,
> > > scientists, heretics and oddballs who all dared to "step outside the
> > > box" and question the conventional wisdoms of their environments,
> > > frequently at the cost of intense internal spiritual suffering and
> > > external opprobrium and persecution. Not all of them are atheists, she
> > > includes figures such as Jesus and Augustine as well, but all of them
> > > are people who dared to doubt, to question.
> > > It strikes me that Charron's view of wise searchers as those who dare
> > > "to doubt, to consider both points of view, to put off a decision" is
> > > not a bad aphorism for us here on ME.
> Aaah, but do you KNOW you're right? Are you SURE you're right? What
> Charron and others (including e.g. Marcus Aurelius, or - according to
> some interpretations - the Buddha) are talking about is a basic
> questioning attitude, living with and in doubt, which, at a certain
> stage, brings its own contentment/enlightenment at a deeper level -
> while the process continues ... Openness ...
> Francis
> On 7 Nov., 11:18, iam deheretic <dehere...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Interesting
> > It's a marvellous pageant of priests, philosophers and poets,
> > scientists, heretics and oddballs who all dared to "step outside the
> > box" and question the conventional wisdoms of their environments,
> > frequently at the cost of intense internal spiritual suffering and
> > external opprobrium and persecution. Not all of them are atheists, she
> > includes figures such as Jesus and Augustine as well, but all of them
> > are people who dared to doubt, to question.
> > What I would like to know is why when you step out of the comfort box and
> > challenge idea and there is the internal doubt whay ther is so much
> > suffering and turmoil. especially when you know you are right.
> > Allan
> > On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 9:40 AM, frantheman <francis.h...@googlemail.com>wrote:
> > > I'm reading a marvellous book at the moment; "Doubt: A History", by
> > > Jennifer Michael Hecht (HarperCollins, NY, 2004).
> > >http://www.amazon.com/Doubt-Doubters-Innovation-Jefferson-Dickinson/d...
> > > In it the author, an historian and poet, takes an eloquent trip
> > > through the whole history of ideas, from the pre-Socratics and the
> > > Buddha to Salman Rushdie and the Brights, tracing the story of
> > > questioning certainties throughout the ages. She quotes Pierre
> > > Charron, a student of Michel de Montaigne, who wrote in his book "Of
> > > Wisdom" (1601) concerning doubt:
> > > "It alone can provide true repose and security of our spirits. Have
> > > all the greatest and most noble philosophers and wise men who have
> > > professed doubt been in a state of anxiety and suffering? But they
> > > say: to doubt, to consider both points of view, to put off a decision,
> > > is this not painful? I reply, it is indeed for fools, but not for wise
> > > men. It is painful for people who cannot stand freedom, for those who
> > > are presumptuous, partisan, passionate and who, obstinately attached
> > > to their opinions, arrogantly condemn all others ... Such people, in
> > > truth, know nothing. They do not even know what it is to know
> > > something."
> > > (Hecht, p. 307)
> > > It's a marvellous pageant of priests, philosophers and poets,
> > > scientists, heretics and oddballs who all dared to "step outside the
> > > box" and question the conventional wisdoms of their environments,
> > > frequently at the cost of intense internal spiritual suffering and
> > > external opprobrium and persecution. Not all of them are atheists, she
> > > includes figures such as Jesus and Augustine as well, but all of them
> > > are people who dared to doubt, to question.
> > > It strikes me that Charron's view of wise searchers as those who dare
> > > "to doubt, to consider both points of view, to put off a decision" is
> > > not a bad aphorism for us here on ME.
It is not the freedom to doubt. everyone has that and it is okay. When you
come against civilization and thinking standing alone doubt is not a
freedom.
Allan
On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 3:31 PM, Vamadevananda <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> True, the freedom to doubt !
> But the freedom to doubt meets its completion in what rings back to be
> true, abidingly.
> There is no limit to what you can doubt, but to how long.
> On Nov 7, 6:40 pm, frantheman <francis.h...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > Aaah, but do you KNOW you're right? Are you SURE you're right? What
> > Charron and others (including e.g. Marcus Aurelius, or - according to
> > some interpretations - the Buddha) are talking about is a basic
> > questioning attitude, living with and in doubt, which, at a certain
> > stage, brings its own contentment/enlightenment at a deeper level -
> > while the process continues ... Openness ...
> > Francis
> > On 7 Nov., 11:18, iam deheretic <dehere...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Interesting
> > > It's a marvellous pageant of priests, philosophers and poets,
> > > scientists, heretics and oddballs who all dared to "step outside the
> > > box" and question the conventional wisdoms of their environments,
> > > frequently at the cost of intense internal spiritual suffering and
> > > external opprobrium and persecution. Not all of them are atheists, she
> > > includes figures such as Jesus and Augustine as well, but all of them
> > > are people who dared to doubt, to question.
> > > What I would like to know is why when you step out of the comfort box
> and
> > > challenge idea and there is the internal doubt whay ther is so much
> > > suffering and turmoil. especially when you know you are right.
> > > Allan
> > > On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 9:40 AM, frantheman <
> francis.h...@googlemail.com>wrote:
> > > > I'm reading a marvellous book at the moment; "Doubt: A History", by
> > > > Jennifer Michael Hecht (HarperCollins, NY, 2004).
> http://www.amazon.com/Doubt-Doubters-Innovation-Jefferson-Dickinson/d...
> > > > In it the author, an historian and poet, takes an eloquent trip
> > > > through the whole history of ideas, from the pre-Socratics and the
> > > > Buddha to Salman Rushdie and the Brights, tracing the story of
> > > > questioning certainties throughout the ages. She quotes Pierre
> > > > Charron, a student of Michel de Montaigne, who wrote in his book "Of
> > > > Wisdom" (1601) concerning doubt:
> > > > "It alone can provide true repose and security of our spirits. Have
> > > > all the greatest and most noble philosophers and wise men who have
> > > > professed doubt been in a state of anxiety and suffering? But they
> > > > say: to doubt, to consider both points of view, to put off a
> decision,
> > > > is this not painful? I reply, it is indeed for fools, but not for
> wise
> > > > men. It is painful for people who cannot stand freedom, for those who
> > > > are presumptuous, partisan, passionate and who, obstinately attached
> > > > to their opinions, arrogantly condemn all others ... Such people, in
> > > > truth, know nothing. They do not even know what it is to know
> > > > something."
> > > > (Hecht, p. 307)
> > > > It's a marvellous pageant of priests, philosophers and poets,
> > > > scientists, heretics and oddballs who all dared to "step outside the
> > > > box" and question the conventional wisdoms of their environments,
> > > > frequently at the cost of intense internal spiritual suffering and
> > > > external opprobrium and persecution. Not all of them are atheists,
> she
> > > > includes figures such as Jesus and Augustine as well, but all of them
> > > > are people who dared to doubt, to question.
> > > > It strikes me that Charron's view of wise searchers as those who dare
> > > > "to doubt, to consider both points of view, to put off a decision" is
> > > > not a bad aphorism for us here on ME.
I think that it would be easy to get tied up in semantic differences
here. There are translations of the word fear in the bible that mean
absolute reverence - a meaning that is a far cry from the crippling
emotion usually associated with the word fear. Also with doubt, if
associated with destructive criticism, the chronic attitude that
knowledge is unattainable, or the position that no truth can be
established (all usually associated with skepticism), then it has a
very different meaning that the doubt suggested by Francis above,
where doubt can establish a space of disagreement for the moment, and
lead us into greater possibility.
On Nov 7, 9:48 am, iam deheretic <dehere...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It is not the freedom to doubt. everyone has that and it is okay. When you
> come against civilization and thinking standing alone doubt is not a
> freedom.
> Allan
> On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 3:31 PM, Vamadevananda <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > True, the freedom to doubt !
> > But the freedom to doubt meets its completion in what rings back to be
> > true, abidingly.
> > There is no limit to what you can doubt, but to how long.
> > On Nov 7, 6:40 pm, frantheman <francis.h...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > Aaah, but do you KNOW you're right? Are you SURE you're right? What
> > > Charron and others (including e.g. Marcus Aurelius, or - according to
> > > some interpretations - the Buddha) are talking about is a basic
> > > questioning attitude, living with and in doubt, which, at a certain
> > > stage, brings its own contentment/enlightenment at a deeper level -
> > > while the process continues ... Openness ...
> > > Francis
> > > On 7 Nov., 11:18, iam deheretic <dehere...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Interesting
> > > > It's a marvellous pageant of priests, philosophers and poets,
> > > > scientists, heretics and oddballs who all dared to "step outside the
> > > > box" and question the conventional wisdoms of their environments,
> > > > frequently at the cost of intense internal spiritual suffering and
> > > > external opprobrium and persecution. Not all of them are atheists, she
> > > > includes figures such as Jesus and Augustine as well, but all of them
> > > > are people who dared to doubt, to question.
> > > > What I would like to know is why when you step out of the comfort box
> > and
> > > > challenge idea and there is the internal doubt whay ther is so much
> > > > suffering and turmoil. especially when you know you are right.
> > > > Allan
> > > > On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 9:40 AM, frantheman <
> > francis.h...@googlemail.com>wrote:
> > > > > I'm reading a marvellous book at the moment; "Doubt: A History", by
> > > > > Jennifer Michael Hecht (HarperCollins, NY, 2004).
> >http://www.amazon.com/Doubt-Doubters-Innovation-Jefferson-Dickinson/d...
> > > > > In it the author, an historian and poet, takes an eloquent trip
> > > > > through the whole history of ideas, from the pre-Socratics and the
> > > > > Buddha to Salman Rushdie and the Brights, tracing the story of
> > > > > questioning certainties throughout the ages. She quotes Pierre
> > > > > Charron, a student of Michel de Montaigne, who wrote in his book "Of
> > > > > Wisdom" (1601) concerning doubt:
> > > > > "It alone can provide true repose and security of our spirits. Have
> > > > > all the greatest and most noble philosophers and wise men who have
> > > > > professed doubt been in a state of anxiety and suffering? But they
> > > > > say: to doubt, to consider both points of view, to put off a
> > decision,
> > > > > is this not painful? I reply, it is indeed for fools, but not for
> > wise
> > > > > men. It is painful for people who cannot stand freedom, for those who
> > > > > are presumptuous, partisan, passionate and who, obstinately attached
> > > > > to their opinions, arrogantly condemn all others ... Such people, in
> > > > > truth, know nothing. They do not even know what it is to know
> > > > > something."
> > > > > (Hecht, p. 307)
> > > > > It's a marvellous pageant of priests, philosophers and poets,
> > > > > scientists, heretics and oddballs who all dared to "step outside the
> > > > > box" and question the conventional wisdoms of their environments,
> > > > > frequently at the cost of intense internal spiritual suffering and
> > > > > external opprobrium and persecution. Not all of them are atheists,
> > she
> > > > > includes figures such as Jesus and Augustine as well, but all of them
> > > > > are people who dared to doubt, to question.
> > > > > It strikes me that Charron's view of wise searchers as those who dare
> > > > > "to doubt, to consider both points of view, to put off a decision" is
> > > > > not a bad aphorism for us here on ME.
> I'm reading a marvellous book at the moment; "Doubt: A History", by
> Jennifer Michael Hecht (HarperCollins, NY, 2004).
> http://www.amazon.com/Doubt-Doubters-Innovation-Jefferson-Dickinson/d... > In it the author, an historian and poet, takes an eloquent trip
> through the whole history of ideas, from the pre-Socratics and the
> Buddha to Salman Rushdie and the Brights, tracing the story of
> questioning certainties throughout the ages. She quotes Pierre
> Charron, a student of Michel de Montaigne, who wrote in his book "Of
> Wisdom" (1601) concerning doubt:
> "It alone can provide true repose and security of our spirits. Have
> all the greatest and most noble philosophers and wise men who have
> professed doubt been in a state of anxiety and suffering? But they
> say: to doubt, to consider both points of view, to put off a decision,
> is this not painful? I reply, it is indeed for fools, but not for wise
> men. It is painful for people who cannot stand freedom, for those who
> are presumptuous, partisan, passionate and who, obstinately attached
> to their opinions, arrogantly condemn all others ... Such people, in
> truth, know nothing. They do not even know what it is to know
> something."
> (Hecht, p. 307)
> It's a marvellous pageant of priests, philosophers and poets,
> scientists, heretics and oddballs who all dared to "step outside the
> box" and question the conventional wisdoms of their environments,
> frequently at the cost of intense internal spiritual suffering and
> external opprobrium and persecution. Not all of them are atheists, she
> includes figures such as Jesus and Augustine as well, but all of them
> are people who dared to doubt, to question.
> It strikes me that Charron's view of wise searchers as those who dare
> "to doubt, to consider both points of view, to put off a decision" is
> not a bad aphorism for us here on ME.
Once we are into doubting when do we start to doubt doubt? What would
be the 'rules' of doubting? Even Descartes wasn't a radical doubter.
There are some epistemological answers. Most of us wouldn't take the
idea that Tony Blair is CIA that seriously - yet in fleshing out what
might be entailed if he is we might well find serious reasons to doubt
the integrity of our political system and change it.
On 7 Nov, 20:02, Doris Ragland <dr4...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 12:40 AM, frantheman <francis.h...@googlemail.com>wrote:
> > I'm reading a marvellous book at the moment; "Doubt: A History", by
> > Jennifer Michael Hecht (HarperCollins, NY, 2004).
> >http://www.amazon.com/Doubt-Doubters-Innovation-Jefferson-Dickinson/d...
> > In it the author, an historian and poet, takes an eloquent trip
> > through the whole history of ideas, from the pre-Socratics and the
> > Buddha to Salman Rushdie and the Brights, tracing the story of
> > questioning certainties throughout the ages. She quotes Pierre
> > Charron, a student of Michel de Montaigne, who wrote in his book "Of
> > Wisdom" (1601) concerning doubt:
> > "It alone can provide true repose and security of our spirits. Have
> > all the greatest and most noble philosophers and wise men who have
> > professed doubt been in a state of anxiety and suffering? But they
> > say: to doubt, to consider both points of view, to put off a decision,
> > is this not painful? I reply, it is indeed for fools, but not for wise
> > men. It is painful for people who cannot stand freedom, for those who
> > are presumptuous, partisan, passionate and who, obstinately attached
> > to their opinions, arrogantly condemn all others ... Such people, in
> > truth, know nothing. They do not even know what it is to know
> > something."
> > (Hecht, p. 307)
> > It's a marvellous pageant of priests, philosophers and poets,
> > scientists, heretics and oddballs who all dared to "step outside the
> > box" and question the conventional wisdoms of their environments,
> > frequently at the cost of intense internal spiritual suffering and
> > external opprobrium and persecution. Not all of them are atheists, she
> > includes figures such as Jesus and Augustine as well, but all of them
> > are people who dared to doubt, to question.
> > It strikes me that Charron's view of wise searchers as those who dare
> > "to doubt, to consider both points of view, to put off a decision" is
> > not a bad aphorism for us here on ME.
doubt, I think, has an emotional or psychological element to it as can
be seen in Webster's definition:
to be afraid of : FEAR -- used with an infinitive phrase or a clause
as object
to lack confidence in : DISTRUST, SUSPECT <find myself doubting him
even when I know that he is honest -- H.L.Mencken> b : to be inclined
not to believe or accept : consider unlikely or improbable
to be uncertain or undecided in opinion or belief
discernment, I think, has a more integrated approach, leaving us less
in fear, distrust and uncertainly, and leading us more into greater
possibility (again I will reference Webster):
to sense or come to know or recognize mentally especially something
that is hidden or obscure <the inductive apprehension of a truth
imperfectly discerned -- B.N.Cardozo> <the ability to discern and
analyze the essentials of complicated questions -- K.C.Wheare>
to mark as separate and distinct : put a distinguishing mark upon b :
to recognize or identify as separate and distinct : DIFFERENTIATE,
DISCRIMINATE <discern right from wrong> <discern the false from the
genuine>
intransitive verb : to see or understand the difference : to make
distinction <discern between good and evil>
in other words, when we discern, we reveal to ourselves what was
hidden, recognize more or discriminate. When we doubt, we seem to
stop there and go no further, disregarding what we doubt and remaining
ourselves, in doubt.
The material Francis presents suggests the importance of moving beyond
the doubt and find the greater wisdom, or, in essence, move from doubt
to discernment. To this I say, Bravo! because in doing so, we may
reach a point where doubt is replaced by discernment and no longer
necessary.
On Nov 7, 10:56 pm, archytas <nwte...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Once we are into doubting when do we start to doubt doubt? What would
> be the 'rules' of doubting? Even Descartes wasn't a radical doubter.
> There are some epistemological answers. Most of us wouldn't take the
> idea that Tony Blair is CIA that seriously - yet in fleshing out what
> might be entailed if he is we might well find serious reasons to doubt
> the integrity of our political system and change it.
> On 7 Nov, 20:02, Doris Ragland <dr4...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I will read it
> > On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 12:40 AM, frantheman <francis.h...@googlemail.com>wrote:
> > > I'm reading a marvellous book at the moment; "Doubt: A History", by
> > > Jennifer Michael Hecht (HarperCollins, NY, 2004).
> > >http://www.amazon.com/Doubt-Doubters-Innovation-Jefferson-Dickinson/d...
> > > In it the author, an historian and poet, takes an eloquent trip
> > > through the whole history of ideas, from the pre-Socratics and the
> > > Buddha to Salman Rushdie and the Brights, tracing the story of
> > > questioning certainties throughout the ages. She quotes Pierre
> > > Charron, a student of Michel de Montaigne, who wrote in his book "Of
> > > Wisdom" (1601) concerning doubt:
> > > "It alone can provide true repose and security of our spirits. Have
> > > all the greatest and most noble philosophers and wise men who have
> > > professed doubt been in a state of anxiety and suffering? But they
> > > say: to doubt, to consider both points of view, to put off a decision,
> > > is this not painful? I reply, it is indeed for fools, but not for wise
> > > men. It is painful for people who cannot stand freedom, for those who
> > > are presumptuous, partisan, passionate and who, obstinately attached
> > > to their opinions, arrogantly condemn all others ... Such people, in
> > > truth, know nothing. They do not even know what it is to know
> > > something."
> > > (Hecht, p. 307)
> > > It's a marvellous pageant of priests, philosophers and poets,
> > > scientists, heretics and oddballs who all dared to "step outside the
> > > box" and question the conventional wisdoms of their environments,
> > > frequently at the cost of intense internal spiritual suffering and
> > > external opprobrium and persecution. Not all of them are atheists, she
> > > includes figures such as Jesus and Augustine as well, but all of them
> > > are people who dared to doubt, to question.
> > > It strikes me that Charron's view of wise searchers as those who dare
> > > "to doubt, to consider both points of view, to put off a decision" is
> > > not a bad aphorism for us here on ME.
You are no doubt right Molly, though dangers of 'discernment Nazis'
remain. I've just been reading some HRM "research" making the usual
vapid claims that we could summarise as 'Eight out of ten people
prefer designing their own jobs to eating powdered glass, this
confirming HRM is wonderful'. The problem is not becoming so cosy in
discernment that all one can offer is positive gloss.
I prefer the Kantian sublime in these areas to radical doubt and
recognition that renewal processes are necessary from time to time
(perhaps even potlach). Life is in some kind of cycle with decay
after all.
On 8 Nov, 13:01, Molly Brogan <mollybro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> doubt, I think, has an emotional or psychological element to it as can
> be seen in Webster's definition:
> to be afraid of : FEAR -- used with an infinitive phrase or a clause
> as object
> to lack confidence in : DISTRUST, SUSPECT <find myself doubting him
> even when I know that he is honest -- H.L.Mencken> b : to be inclined
> not to believe or accept : consider unlikely or improbable
> to be uncertain or undecided in opinion or belief
> discernment, I think, has a more integrated approach, leaving us less
> in fear, distrust and uncertainly, and leading us more into greater
> possibility (again I will reference Webster):
> to sense or come to know or recognize mentally especially something
> that is hidden or obscure <the inductive apprehension of a truth
> imperfectly discerned -- B.N.Cardozo> <the ability to discern and
> analyze the essentials of complicated questions -- K.C.Wheare>
> to mark as separate and distinct : put a distinguishing mark upon b :
> to recognize or identify as separate and distinct : DIFFERENTIATE,
> DISCRIMINATE <discern right from wrong> <discern the false from the
> genuine>
> intransitive verb : to see or understand the difference : to make
> distinction <discern between good and evil>
> in other words, when we discern, we reveal to ourselves what was
> hidden, recognize more or discriminate. When we doubt, we seem to
> stop there and go no further, disregarding what we doubt and remaining
> ourselves, in doubt.
> The material Francis presents suggests the importance of moving beyond
> the doubt and find the greater wisdom, or, in essence, move from doubt
> to discernment. To this I say, Bravo! because in doing so, we may
> reach a point where doubt is replaced by discernment and no longer
> necessary.
> On Nov 7, 10:56 pm, archytas <nwte...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > Once we are into doubting when do we start to doubt doubt? What would
> > be the 'rules' of doubting? Even Descartes wasn't a radical doubter.
> > There are some epistemological answers. Most of us wouldn't take the
> > idea that Tony Blair is CIA that seriously - yet in fleshing out what
> > might be entailed if he is we might well find serious reasons to doubt
> > the integrity of our political system and change it.
> > On 7 Nov, 20:02, Doris Ragland <dr4...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I will read it
> > > On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 12:40 AM, frantheman <francis.h...@googlemail.com>wrote:
> > > > I'm reading a marvellous book at the moment; "Doubt: A History", by
> > > > Jennifer Michael Hecht (HarperCollins, NY, 2004).
> > > >http://www.amazon.com/Doubt-Doubters-Innovation-Jefferson-Dickinson/d...
> > > > In it the author, an historian and poet, takes an eloquent trip
> > > > through the whole history of ideas, from the pre-Socratics and the
> > > > Buddha to Salman Rushdie and the Brights, tracing the story of
> > > > questioning certainties throughout the ages. She quotes Pierre
> > > > Charron, a student of Michel de Montaigne, who wrote in his book "Of
> > > > Wisdom" (1601) concerning doubt:
> > > > "It alone can provide true repose and security of our spirits. Have
> > > > all the greatest and most noble philosophers and wise men who have
> > > > professed doubt been in a state of anxiety and suffering? But they
> > > > say: to doubt, to consider both points of view, to put off a decision,
> > > > is this not painful? I reply, it is indeed for fools, but not for wise
> > > > men. It is painful for people who cannot stand freedom, for those who
> > > > are presumptuous, partisan, passionate and who, obstinately attached
> > > > to their opinions, arrogantly condemn all others ... Such people, in
> > > > truth, know nothing. They do not even know what it is to know
> > > > something."
> > > > (Hecht, p. 307)
> > > > It's a marvellous pageant of priests, philosophers and poets,
> > > > scientists, heretics and oddballs who all dared to "step outside the
> > > > box" and question the conventional wisdoms of their environments,
> > > > frequently at the cost of intense internal spiritual suffering and
> > > > external opprobrium and persecution. Not all of them are atheists, she
> > > > includes figures such as Jesus and Augustine as well, but all of them
> > > > are people who dared to doubt, to question.
> > > > It strikes me that Charron's view of wise searchers as those who dare
> > > > "to doubt, to consider both points of view, to put off a decision" is
> > > > not a bad aphorism for us here on ME.
> You are no doubt right Molly, though dangers of 'discernment Nazis'
> remain. I've just been reading some HRM "research" making the usual
> vapid claims that we could summarise as 'Eight out of ten people
> prefer designing their own jobs to eating powdered glass, this
> confirming HRM is wonderful'. The problem is not becoming so cosy in
> discernment that all one can offer is positive gloss.
> I prefer the Kantian sublime in these areas to radical doubt and
> recognition that renewal processes are necessary from time to time
> (perhaps even potlach). Life is in some kind of cycle with decay
> after all.
> On 8 Nov, 13:01, Molly Brogan <mollybro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > doubt, I think, has an emotional or psychological element to it as can
> > be seen in Webster's definition:
> > to be afraid of : FEAR -- used with an infinitive phrase or a clause
> > as object
> > to lack confidence in : DISTRUST, SUSPECT <find myself doubting him
> > even when I know that he is honest -- H.L.Mencken> b : to be inclined
> > not to believe or accept : consider unlikely or improbable
> > to be uncertain or undecided in opinion or belief
> > discernment, I think, has a more integrated approach, leaving us less
> > in fear, distrust and uncertainly, and leading us more into greater
> > possibility (again I will reference Webster):
> > to sense or come to know or recognize mentally especially something
> > that is hidden or obscure <the inductive apprehension of a truth
> > imperfectly discerned -- B.N.Cardozo> <the ability to discern and
> > analyze the essentials of complicated questions -- K.C.Wheare>
> > to mark as separate and distinct : put a distinguishing mark upon b :
> > to recognize or identify as separate and distinct : DIFFERENTIATE,
> > DISCRIMINATE <discern right from wrong> <discern the false from the
> > genuine>
> > intransitive verb : to see or understand the difference : to make
> > distinction <discern between good and evil>
> > in other words, when we discern, we reveal to ourselves what was
> > hidden, recognize more or discriminate. When we doubt, we seem to
> > stop there and go no further, disregarding what we doubt and remaining
> > ourselves, in doubt.
> > The material Francis presents suggests the importance of moving beyond
> > the doubt and find the greater wisdom, or, in essence, move from doubt
> > to discernment. To this I say, Bravo! because in doing so, we may
> > reach a point where doubt is replaced by discernment and no longer
> > necessary.
> > On Nov 7, 10:56 pm, archytas <nwte...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > Once we are into doubting when do we start to doubt doubt? What would
> > > be the 'rules' of doubting? Even Descartes wasn't a radical doubter.
> > > There are some epistemological answers. Most of us wouldn't take the
> > > idea that Tony Blair is CIA that seriously - yet in fleshing out what
> > > might be entailed if he is we might well find serious reasons to doubt
> > > the integrity of our political system and change it.
> > > > On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 12:40 AM, frantheman <francis.h...@googlemail.com>wrote:
> > > > > I'm reading a marvellous book at the moment; "Doubt: A History", by
> > > > > Jennifer Michael Hecht (HarperCollins, NY, 2004).
> > > > >http://www.amazon.com/Doubt-Doubters-Innovation-Jefferson-Dickinson/d...
> > > > > In it the author, an historian and poet, takes an eloquent trip
> > > > > through the whole history of ideas, from the pre-Socratics and the
> > > > > Buddha to Salman Rushdie and the Brights, tracing the story of
> > > > > questioning certainties throughout the ages. She quotes Pierre
> > > > > Charron, a student of Michel de Montaigne, who wrote in his book "Of
> > > > > Wisdom" (1601) concerning doubt:
> > > > > "It alone can provide true repose and security of our spirits. Have
> > > > > all the greatest and most noble philosophers and wise men who have
> > > > > professed doubt been in a state of anxiety and suffering? But they
> > > > > say: to doubt, to consider both points of view, to put off a decision,
> > > > > is this not painful? I reply, it is indeed for fools, but not for wise
> > > > > men. It is painful for people who cannot stand freedom, for those who
> > > > > are presumptuous, partisan, passionate and who, obstinately attached
> > > > > to their opinions, arrogantly condemn all others ... Such people, in
> > > > > truth, know nothing. They do not even know what it is to know
> > > > > something."
> > > > > (Hecht, p. 307)
> > > > > It's a marvellous pageant of priests, philosophers and poets,
> > > > > scientists, heretics and oddballs who all dared to "step outside the
> > > > > box" and question the conventional wisdoms of their environments,
> > > > > frequently at the cost of intense internal spiritual suffering and
> > > > > external opprobrium and persecution. Not all of them are atheists, she
> > > > > includes figures such as Jesus and Augustine as well, but all of them
> > > > > are people who dared to doubt, to question.
> > > > > It strikes me that Charron's view of wise searchers as those who dare
> > > > > "to doubt, to consider both points of view, to put off a decision" is
> > > > > not a bad aphorism for us here on ME.
I suspect 'doubt in use' is extremely complex. I doubt politicians,
but what might this mean? Anything from thinking of them as 'self-
interested scumbags' to fears 'aliens take their families hostage as
soon as they get in power'! The politicians certainly don't appear to
be able to doubt some kind of central theme or dogma that gets hold of
them once they can change things.
On 8 Nov, 13:35, Molly Brogan <mollybro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 8, 8:31 am, archytas <nwte...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > You are no doubt right Molly, though dangers of 'discernment Nazis'
> > remain. I've just been reading some HRM "research" making the usual
> > vapid claims that we could summarise as 'Eight out of ten people
> > prefer designing their own jobs to eating powdered glass, this
> > confirming HRM is wonderful'. The problem is not becoming so cosy in
> > discernment that all one can offer is positive gloss.
> > I prefer the Kantian sublime in these areas to radical doubt and
> > recognition that renewal processes are necessary from time to time
> > (perhaps even potlach). Life is in some kind of cycle with decay
> > after all.
> > On 8 Nov, 13:01, Molly Brogan <mollybro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > doubt, I think, has an emotional or psychological element to it as can
> > > be seen in Webster's definition:
> > > to be afraid of : FEAR -- used with an infinitive phrase or a clause
> > > as object
> > > to lack confidence in : DISTRUST, SUSPECT <find myself doubting him
> > > even when I know that he is honest -- H.L.Mencken> b : to be inclined
> > > not to believe or accept : consider unlikely or improbable
> > > to be uncertain or undecided in opinion or belief
> > > discernment, I think, has a more integrated approach, leaving us less
> > > in fear, distrust and uncertainly, and leading us more into greater
> > > possibility (again I will reference Webster):
> > > to sense or come to know or recognize mentally especially something
> > > that is hidden or obscure <the inductive apprehension of a truth
> > > imperfectly discerned -- B.N.Cardozo> <the ability to discern and
> > > analyze the essentials of complicated questions -- K.C.Wheare>
> > > to mark as separate and distinct : put a distinguishing mark upon b :
> > > to recognize or identify as separate and distinct : DIFFERENTIATE,
> > > DISCRIMINATE <discern right from wrong> <discern the false from the
> > > genuine>
> > > intransitive verb : to see or understand the difference : to make
> > > distinction <discern between good and evil>
> > > in other words, when we discern, we reveal to ourselves what was
> > > hidden, recognize more or discriminate. When we doubt, we seem to
> > > stop there and go no further, disregarding what we doubt and remaining
> > > ourselves, in doubt.
> > > The material Francis presents suggests the importance of moving beyond
> > > the doubt and find the greater wisdom, or, in essence, move from doubt
> > > to discernment. To this I say, Bravo! because in doing so, we may
> > > reach a point where doubt is replaced by discernment and no longer
> > > necessary.
> > > On Nov 7, 10:56 pm, archytas <nwte...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > > Once we are into doubting when do we start to doubt doubt? What would
> > > > be the 'rules' of doubting? Even Descartes wasn't a radical doubter.
> > > > There are some epistemological answers. Most of us wouldn't take the
> > > > idea that Tony Blair is CIA that seriously - yet in fleshing out what
> > > > might be entailed if he is we might well find serious reasons to doubt
> > > > the integrity of our political system and change it.
> > > > > On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 12:40 AM, frantheman <francis.h...@googlemail.com>wrote:
> > > > > > I'm reading a marvellous book at the moment; "Doubt: A History", by
> > > > > > Jennifer Michael Hecht (HarperCollins, NY, 2004).
> > > > > >http://www.amazon.com/Doubt-Doubters-Innovation-Jefferson-Dickinson/d...
> > > > > > In it the author, an historian and poet, takes an eloquent trip
> > > > > > through the whole history of ideas, from the pre-Socratics and the
> > > > > > Buddha to Salman Rushdie and the Brights, tracing the story of
> > > > > > questioning certainties throughout the ages. She quotes Pierre
> > > > > > Charron, a student of Michel de Montaigne, who wrote in his book "Of
> > > > > > Wisdom" (1601) concerning doubt:
> > > > > > "It alone can provide true repose and security of our spirits. Have
> > > > > > all the greatest and most noble philosophers and wise men who have
> > > > > > professed doubt been in a state of anxiety and suffering? But they
> > > > > > say: to doubt, to consider both points of view, to put off a decision,
> > > > > > is this not painful? I reply, it is indeed for fools, but not for wise
> > > > > > men. It is painful for people who cannot stand freedom, for those who
> > > > > > are presumptuous, partisan, passionate and who, obstinately attached
> > > > > > to their opinions, arrogantly condemn all others ... Such people, in
> > > > > > truth, know nothing. They do not even know what it is to know
> > > > > > something."
> > > > > > (Hecht, p. 307)
> > > > > > It's a marvellous pageant of priests, philosophers and poets,
> > > > > > scientists, heretics and oddballs who all dared to "step outside the
> > > > > > box" and question the conventional wisdoms of their environments,
> > > > > > frequently at the cost of intense internal spiritual suffering and
> > > > > > external opprobrium and persecution. Not all of them are atheists, she
> > > > > > includes figures such as Jesus and Augustine as well, but all of them
> > > > > > are people who dared to doubt, to question.
> > > > > > It strikes me that Charron's view of wise searchers as those who dare
> > > > > > "to doubt, to consider both points of view, to put off a decision" is
> > > > > > not a bad aphorism for us here on ME.
To me doubt can be very beneficial for society and the spirit of question is
needed in politicians and in life in general. I think the original topic is
dealing with spiritual and religion. When the greatest of people step out of
the box such as christianity they step directly into a different box such as
Buddhism which is defined.
The real problem comes when you step out of a box such as christianity
re-evaluating the ideas and teachings you find your self outside the box
standing alone. Then you have the problem or rather the question that arises
naturally, 'what makes me right and everyone else wrong?' you are defining
own narrow path and doubt is very much part of it.
The oddity that i have found personally is that when it seems you are on
this solitary path there are many others that see thing the same as you do
and you are not truly alone.
Allan
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 2:41 PM, archytas <nwte...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> I suspect 'doubt in use' is extremely complex. I doubt politicians,
> but what might this mean? Anything from thinking of them as 'self-
> interested scumbags' to fears 'aliens take their families hostage as
> soon as they get in power'! The politicians certainly don't appear to
> be able to doubt some kind of central theme or dogma that gets hold of
> them once they can change things.
> On 8 Nov, 13:35, Molly Brogan <mollybro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > the dark night before the dawn
> > On Nov 8, 8:31 am, archytas <nwte...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > You are no doubt right Molly, though dangers of 'discernment Nazis'
> > > remain. I've just been reading some HRM "research" making the usual
> > > vapid claims that we could summarise as 'Eight out of ten people
> > > prefer designing their own jobs to eating powdered glass, this
> > > confirming HRM is wonderful'. The problem is not becoming so cosy in
> > > discernment that all one can offer is positive gloss.
> > > I prefer the Kantian sublime in these areas to radical doubt and
> > > recognition that renewal processes are necessary from time to time
> > > (perhaps even potlach). Life is in some kind of cycle with decay
> > > after all.
> > > > doubt, I think, has an emotional or psychological element to it as
> can
> > > > be seen in Webster's definition:
> > > > to be afraid of : FEAR -- used with an infinitive phrase or a clause
> > > > as object
> > > > to lack confidence in : DISTRUST, SUSPECT <find myself doubting him
> > > > even when I know that he is honest -- H.L.Mencken> b : to be inclined
> > > > not to believe or accept : consider unlikely or improbable
> > > > to be uncertain or undecided in opinion or belief
> > > > discernment, I think, has a more integrated approach, leaving us less
> > > > in fear, distrust and uncertainly, and leading us more into greater
> > > > possibility (again I will reference Webster):
> > > > to sense or come to know or recognize mentally especially something
> > > > that is hidden or obscure <the inductive apprehension of a truth
> > > > imperfectly discerned -- B.N.Cardozo> <the ability to discern and
> > > > analyze the essentials of complicated questions -- K.C.Wheare>
> > > > to mark as separate and distinct : put a distinguishing mark upon b :
> > > > to recognize or identify as separate and distinct : DIFFERENTIATE,
> > > > DISCRIMINATE <discern right from wrong> <discern the false from the
> > > > genuine>
> > > > intransitive verb : to see or understand the difference : to make
> > > > distinction <discern between good and evil>
> > > > in other words, when we discern, we reveal to ourselves what was
> > > > hidden, recognize more or discriminate. When we doubt, we seem to
> > > > stop there and go no further, disregarding what we doubt and
> remaining
> > > > ourselves, in doubt.
> > > > The material Francis presents suggests the importance of moving
> beyond
> > > > the doubt and find the greater wisdom, or, in essence, move from
> doubt
> > > > to discernment. To this I say, Bravo! because in doing so, we may
> > > > reach a point where doubt is replaced by discernment and no longer
> > > > necessary.
> > > > On Nov 7, 10:56 pm, archytas <nwte...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Once we are into doubting when do we start to doubt doubt? What
> would
> > > > > be the 'rules' of doubting? Even Descartes wasn't a radical
> doubter.
> > > > > There are some epistemological answers. Most of us wouldn't take
> the
> > > > > idea that Tony Blair is CIA that seriously - yet in fleshing out
> what
> > > > > might be entailed if he is we might well find serious reasons to
> doubt
> > > > > the integrity of our political system and change it.
> > > > > > On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 12:40 AM, frantheman <
> francis.h...@googlemail.com>wrote:
> > > > > > > I'm reading a marvellous book at the moment; "Doubt: A
> History", by
> > > > > > > Jennifer Michael Hecht (HarperCollins, NY, 2004).
> http://www.amazon.com/Doubt-Doubters-Innovation-Jefferson-Dickinson/d...
> > > > > > > In it the author, an historian and poet, takes an eloquent trip
> > > > > > > through the whole history of ideas, from the pre-Socratics and
> the
> > > > > > > Buddha to Salman Rushdie and the Brights, tracing the story of
> > > > > > > questioning certainties throughout the ages. She quotes Pierre
> > > > > > > Charron, a student of Michel de Montaigne, who wrote in his
> book "Of
> > > > > > > Wisdom" (1601) concerning doubt:
> > > > > > > "It alone can provide true repose and security of our spirits.
> Have
> > > > > > > all the greatest and most noble philosophers and wise men who
> have
> > > > > > > professed doubt been in a state of anxiety and suffering? But
> they
> > > > > > > say: to doubt, to consider both points of view, to put off a
> decision,
> > > > > > > is this not painful? I reply, it is indeed for fools, but not
> for wise
> > > > > > > men. It is painful for people who cannot stand freedom, for
> those who
> > > > > > > are presumptuous, partisan, passionate and who, obstinately
> attached
> > > > > > > to their opinions, arrogantly condemn all others ... Such
> people, in
> > > > > > > truth, know nothing. They do not even know what it is to know
> > > > > > > something."
> > > > > > > (Hecht, p. 307)
> > > > > > > It's a marvellous pageant of priests, philosophers and poets,
> > > > > > > scientists, heretics and oddballs who all dared to "step
> outside the
> > > > > > > box" and question the conventional wisdoms of their
> environments,
> > > > > > > frequently at the cost of intense internal spiritual suffering
> and
> > > > > > > external opprobrium and persecution. Not all of them are
> atheists, she
> > > > > > > includes figures such as Jesus and Augustine as well, but all
> of them
> > > > > > > are people who dared to doubt, to question.
> > > > > > > It strikes me that Charron's view of wise searchers as those
> who dare
> > > > > > > "to doubt, to consider both points of view, to put off a
> decision" is
> > > > > > > not a bad aphorism for us here on ME.
I appreciate your comments Frantheman re doubt.... My soon to be published book on Demystifying Meaningful Coincidences (Synchronicities) started with my being a defacto Jungian who over the course of my personal and professional experiences began to doubt his basic assumptions.
To do justice to the study of these challenging anomalies requies a serious student to view their nature through the composite lens of such fields of knowledgte including speculative philosophy, depth psychology, science, aspects of the esoteric occult and spirituality.
In so doing there is a clear argument between the Platonists (Jungians) and the Aristotelians ( a couple of naturalists including myself). Each begins with an alternative primary assumption about the nature of reality (ontology) and how reality is known (epistemology).
My serious investigation began when I realized that Jung's categorical assertion that he doubts as to whether a rational explanation of these events is even possible.... I doubted the doubter..
In reading the details of his thinking (and appreciating some of the massive blindspots in his personality affecting his radical anti scientific point of view_ I realised his assertions raise more questions than provide absolute answers.
Among the questions raised are: what is the nature of causality.... If you eliminate conventional scientific linear logic (causality) as an inadequate explanatory principle to understand the link between the inner event and the outer event in all synchronicities - then before you dismiss causality as a rational explanation - (throwing out the baby with the bath ) is there perhaps a need to expland the concept of causality? Additionally since meaning is a core concept - then there has to be a thorough understanding as to the meaning of meaning. This Jung does not do.
He assumes there is a reality of so called absolute meaning apart from human interpretation that can be channeled and its 'wisdom' extracted.... I think this assumption is seductive but fanciful.. At least I doubt it strongly....
There are other questions which I dlubted and took seriously all of which became the culmination of my original naturalistic theory of synchronicities....
I doubt I will turn any comitted Jungians to doubt but I don't doubt that my doubting has been in vain.
At least I for one feel that I have done a great deal to reenter the mind and rationality into the discussion largely dominated by intution, so called spirituality, and magical thinking.
-----Original Message----- From: frantheman <francis.h...@googlemail.com> To: "Minds Eye" <minds-eye@googlegroups.com> Sent: Sat, Nov 7, 2009 3:40 am Subject: [Mind's Eye] In Praise of Doubt
'm reading a marvellous book at the moment; "Doubt: A History", by ennifer Michael Hecht (HarperCollins, NY, 2004). ttp://www.amazon.com/Doubt-Doubters-Innovation-Jefferson-Dickinson/dp/00600... n it the author, an historian and poet, takes an eloquent trip hrough the whole history of ideas, from the pre-Socratics and the uddha to Salman Rushdie and the Brights, tracing the story of uestioning certainties throughout the ages. She quotes Pierre harron, a student of Michel de Montaigne, who wrote in his book "Of isdom" (1601) concerning doubt: "It alone can provide true repose and security of our spirits. Have ll the greatest and most noble philosophers and wise men who have rofessed doubt been in a state of anxiety and suffering? But they ay: to doubt, to consider both points of view, to put off a decision, s this not painful? I reply, it is indeed for fools, but not for wise en. It is painful for people who cannot stand freedom, for those who re presumptuous, partisan, passionate and who, obstinately attached o their opinions, arrogantly condemn all others ... Such people, in ruth, know nothing. They do not even know what it is to know omething." Hecht, p. 307) It's a marvellous pageant of priests, philosophers and poets, cientists, heretics and oddballs who all dared to "step outside the ox" and question the conventional wisdoms of their environments, requently at the cost of intense internal spiritual suffering and xternal opprobrium and persecution. Not all of them are atheists, she ncludes figures such as Jesus and Augustine as well, but all of them re people who dared to doubt, to question. It strikes me that Charron's view of wise searchers as those who dare to doubt, to consider both points of view, to put off a decision" is ot a bad aphorism for us here on ME. Francis -~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ ou received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Minds Eye"" group. o post to this group, send email to minds-eye@googlegroups.com o unsubscribe from this group, send email to minds-eye+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com or more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en ~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
It's a marvellous pageant of priests, philosophers and poets,
scientists, heretics and oddballs who all dared to "step outside the
box" and question the conventional wisdoms of their environments,
frequently at the cost of intense internal spiritual suffering and
external opprobrium and persecution. -Fran
Not unlike the great Von Mises predicting the Great Depression, eh?
His ideas where poo pooed but he was proved right. I wish our modern
economists read him and respected his ideas more then the print-happy
Keynes. We'd all be in much better shape.
"A weak man has doubts before a decision, a strong man has them
afterwards." -Karl Kraus
How come it is all the smart people are from Germany?
On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 2:40 AM, frantheman <francis.h...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> I'm reading a marvellous book at the moment; "Doubt: A History", by
> Jennifer Michael Hecht (HarperCollins, NY, 2004).
> http://www.amazon.com/Doubt-Doubters-Innovation-Jefferson-Dickinson/d... > In it the author, an historian and poet, takes an eloquent trip
> through the whole history of ideas, from the pre-Socratics and the
> Buddha to Salman Rushdie and the Brights, tracing the story of
> questioning certainties throughout the ages. She quotes Pierre
> Charron, a student of Michel de Montaigne, who wrote in his book "Of
> Wisdom" (1601) concerning doubt:
> "It alone can provide true repose and security of our spirits. Have
> all the greatest and most noble philosophers and wise men who have
> professed doubt been in a state of anxiety and suffering? But they
> say: to doubt, to consider both points of view, to put off a decision,
> is this not painful? I reply, it is indeed for fools, but not for wise
> men. It is painful for people who cannot stand freedom, for those who
> are presumptuous, partisan, passionate and who, obstinately attached
> to their opinions, arrogantly condemn all others ... Such people, in
> truth, know nothing. They do not even know what it is to know
> something."
> (Hecht, p. 307)
> It's a marvellous pageant of priests, philosophers and poets,
> scientists, heretics and oddballs who all dared to "step outside the
> box" and question the conventional wisdoms of their environments,
> frequently at the cost of intense internal spiritual suffering and
> external opprobrium and persecution. Not all of them are atheists, she
> includes figures such as Jesus and Augustine as well, but all of them
> are people who dared to doubt, to question.
> It strikes me that Charron's view of wise searchers as those who dare
> "to doubt, to consider both points of view, to put off a decision" is
> not a bad aphorism for us here on ME.
I've thought for as long time that the ontology, epistemology,
methodology base itself makes almost no sense. One can be
ontologically relativist and yet want a realist-empiricist
epistemology, and relativism itself implies realism. Doubt can become
a very practical form of correction. We may simply not want to become
overbearingly smug, sanctimonious sellers of oration. Perhaps is we
didn't use the term doubt and admitted to 'fuck me I could be wrong'
we might have naturalised to psychology what philosophy can't handle?
> I appreciate your comments Frantheman re doubt.... My soon to be published book on Demystifying Meaningful Coincidences (Synchronicities) started with my being a defacto Jungian who over the course of my personal and professional experiences began to doubt his basic assumptions.
> To do justice to the study of these challenging anomalies requies a serious student to view their nature through the composite lens of such fields of knowledgte including speculative philosophy, depth psychology, science, aspects of the esoteric occult and spirituality.
> In so doing there is a clear argument between the Platonists (Jungians) and the Aristotelians ( a couple of naturalists including myself). Each begins with an alternative primary assumption about the nature of reality (ontology) and how reality is known (epistemology).
> My serious investigation began when I realized that Jung's categorical assertion that he doubts as to whether a rational explanation of these events is even possible.... I doubted the doubter..
> In reading the details of his thinking (and appreciating some of the massive blindspots in his personality affecting his radical anti scientific point of view_ I realised his assertions raise more questions than provide absolute answers.
> Among the questions raised are: what is the nature of causality.... If you eliminate conventional scientific linear logic (causality) as an inadequate explanatory principle to understand the link between the inner event and the outer event in all synchronicities - then before you dismiss causality as a rational explanation - (throwing out the baby with the bath ) is there perhaps a need to expland the concept of causality? Additionally since meaning is a core concept - then there has to be a thorough understanding as to the meaning of meaning. This Jung does not do.
> He assumes there is a reality of so called absolute meaning apart from human interpretation that can be channeled and its 'wisdom' extracted.... I think this assumption is seductive but fanciful.. At least I doubt it strongly....
> There are other questions which I dlubted and took seriously all of which became the culmination of my original naturalistic theory of synchronicities....
> I doubt I will turn any comitted Jungians to doubt but I don't doubt that my doubting has been in vain.
> At least I for one feel that I have done a great deal to reenter the mind and rationality into the discussion largely dominated by intution, so called spirituality, and magical thinking.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: frantheman <francis.h...@googlemail.com>
> To: "Minds Eye" <minds-eye@googlegroups.com>
> Sent: Sat, Nov 7, 2009 3:40 am
> Subject: [Mind's Eye] In Praise of Doubt
> 'm reading a marvellous book at the moment; "Doubt: A History", by
> ennifer Michael Hecht (HarperCollins, NY, 2004).
> ttp://www.amazon.com/Doubt-Doubters-Innovation-Jefferson-Dickinson/dp/00600...
> n it the author, an historian and poet, takes an eloquent trip
> hrough the whole history of ideas, from the pre-Socratics and the
> uddha to Salman Rushdie and the Brights, tracing the story of
> uestioning certainties throughout the ages. She quotes Pierre
> harron, a student of Michel de Montaigne, who wrote in his book "Of
> isdom" (1601) concerning doubt:
> "It alone can provide true repose and security of our spirits. Have
> ll the greatest and most noble philosophers and wise men who have
> rofessed doubt been in a state of anxiety and suffering? But they
> ay: to doubt, to consider both points of view, to put off a decision,
> s this not painful? I reply, it is indeed for fools, but not for wise
> en. It is painful for people who cannot stand freedom, for those who
> re presumptuous, partisan, passionate and who, obstinately attached
> o their opinions, arrogantly condemn all others ... Such people, in
> ruth, know nothing. They do not even know what it is to know
> omething."
> Hecht, p. 307)
> It's a marvellous pageant of priests, philosophers and poets,
> cientists, heretics and oddballs who all dared to "step outside the
> ox" and question the conventional wisdoms of their environments,
> requently at the cost of intense internal spiritual suffering and
> xternal opprobrium and persecution. Not all of them are atheists, she
> ncludes figures such as Jesus and Augustine as well, but all of them
> re people who dared to doubt, to question.
> It strikes me that Charron's view of wise searchers as those who dare
> to doubt, to consider both points of view, to put off a decision" is
> ot a bad aphorism for us here on ME.
> Francis
> -~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
> ou received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Minds Eye"" group.
> o post to this group, send email to minds-eye@googlegroups.com
> o unsubscribe from this group, send email to minds-eye+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
> or more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en > ~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
The broad theme of Hecht's book is to trace the history of "doubt" as
a particular theme throughout the whole history of ideas. In western
terms, this begins with the pre-Socratics questioning the polytheistic
Hellenic religious view of the world; in a Jewish context, she looks
at the Books of Job and Ecclesiastes (Quoleth); in India she sees
Suddhartha/Buddha challenging the conventional Brahmin-dominated,
hierarchical view of karma/samsara/moksha. But much of the book has,
of course, to do with the stories of those who were "atheists", who
denied the pictures of God (and religion) generally accepted in their
societies.
What I particularly liked about the passage from Charron I quoted is
its epistemological modesty - its championing of the possibility of
one's own fallibility:
Have all the greatest and most noble philosophers and wise men who
have
professed doubt been in a state of anxiety and suffering? But they
say: to doubt, to consider both points of view, to put off a
decision,
is this not painful? I reply, it is indeed for fools, but not for
wise
men. It is painful for people who cannot stand freedom, for those who
are presumptuous, partisan, passionate and who, obstinately attached
to their opinions, arrogantly condemn all others ... "
Or, as Oliver Cromwell (not always a champion of tolerance!) famously
put it:
"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be
mistaken!"
It seems to me that a cultivation of such an attitude is helpful in
many circumstances; to give but one example, it enables us to truly
listen to what others are saying.
Francis
On 8 Nov., 17:38, archytas <nwte...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> I've thought for as long time that the ontology, epistemology,
> methodology base itself makes almost no sense. One can be
> ontologically relativist and yet want a realist-empiricist
> epistemology, and relativism itself implies realism. Doubt can become
> a very practical form of correction. We may simply not want to become
> overbearingly smug, sanctimonious sellers of oration. Perhaps is we
> didn't use the term doubt and admitted to 'fuck me I could be wrong'
> we might have naturalised to psychology what philosophy can't handle?
> > I appreciate your comments Frantheman re doubt.... My soon to be published book on Demystifying Meaningful Coincidences (Synchronicities) started with my being a defacto Jungian who over the course of my personal and professional experiences began to doubt his basic assumptions.
> > To do justice to the study of these challenging anomalies requies a serious student to view their nature through the composite lens of such fields of knowledgte including speculative philosophy, depth psychology, science, aspects of the esoteric occult and spirituality.
> > In so doing there is a clear argument between the Platonists (Jungians) and the Aristotelians ( a couple of naturalists including myself). Each begins with an alternative primary assumption about the nature of reality (ontology) and how reality is known (epistemology).
> > My serious investigation began when I realized that Jung's categorical assertion that he doubts as to whether a rational explanation of these events is even possible.... I doubted the doubter..
> > In reading the details of his thinking (and appreciating some of the massive blindspots in his personality affecting his radical anti scientific point of view_ I realised his assertions raise more questions than provide absolute answers.
> > Among the questions raised are: what is the nature of causality.... If you eliminate conventional scientific linear logic (causality) as an inadequate explanatory principle to understand the link between the inner event and the outer event in all synchronicities - then before you dismiss causality as a rational explanation - (throwing out the baby with the bath ) is there perhaps a need to expland the concept of causality? Additionally since meaning is a core concept - then there has to be a thorough understanding as to the meaning of meaning. This Jung does not do.
> > He assumes there is a reality of so called absolute meaning apart from human interpretation that can be channeled and its 'wisdom' extracted.... I think this assumption is seductive but fanciful.. At least I doubt it strongly....
> > There are other questions which I dlubted and took seriously all of which became the culmination of my original naturalistic theory of synchronicities....
> > I doubt I will turn any comitted Jungians to doubt but I don't doubt that my doubting has been in vain.
> > At least I for one feel that I have done a great deal to reenter the mind and rationality into the discussion largely dominated by intution, so called spirituality, and magical thinking.
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: frantheman <francis.h...@googlemail.com>
> > To: "Minds Eye" <minds-eye@googlegroups.com>
> > Sent: Sat, Nov 7, 2009 3:40 am
> > Subject: [Mind's Eye] In Praise of Doubt
> > 'm reading a marvellous book at the moment; "Doubt: A History", by
> > ennifer Michael Hecht (HarperCollins, NY, 2004).
> > ttp://www.amazon.com/Doubt-Doubters-Innovation-Jefferson-Dickinson/dp/00600...
> > n it the author, an historian and poet, takes an eloquent trip
> > hrough the whole history of ideas, from the pre-Socratics and the
> > uddha to Salman Rushdie and the Brights, tracing the story of
> > uestioning certainties throughout the ages. She quotes Pierre
> > harron, a student of Michel de Montaigne, who wrote in his book "Of
> > isdom" (1601) concerning doubt:
> > "It alone can provide true repose and security of our spirits. Have
> > ll the greatest and most noble philosophers and wise men who have
> > rofessed doubt been in a state of anxiety and suffering? But they
> > ay: to doubt, to consider both points of view, to put off a decision,
> > s this not painful? I reply, it is indeed for fools, but not for wise
> > en. It is painful for people who cannot stand freedom, for those who
> > re presumptuous, partisan, passionate and who, obstinately attached
> > o their opinions, arrogantly condemn all others ... Such people, in
> > ruth, know nothing. They do not even know what it is to know
> > omething."
> > Hecht, p. 307)
> > It's a marvellous pageant of priests, philosophers and poets,
> > cientists, heretics and oddballs who all dared to "step outside the
> > ox" and question the conventional wisdoms of their environments,
> > requently at the cost of intense internal spiritual suffering and
> > xternal opprobrium and persecution. Not all of them are atheists, she
> > ncludes figures such as Jesus and Augustine as well, but all of them
> > re people who dared to doubt, to question.
> > It strikes me that Charron's view of wise searchers as those who dare
> > to doubt, to consider both points of view, to put off a decision" is
> > ot a bad aphorism for us here on ME.
> > Francis
> > -~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
> > ou received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Minds Eye"" group.
> > o post to this group, send email to minds-eye@googlegroups.com
> > o unsubscribe from this group, send email to minds-eye+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
> > or more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en > > ~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
The politician is reaching out for what he can. Why does that disturb
you, Neil ? They do a lot, suffer a lot, to be in that position !
You are not capable of that. So, once again, why do you begrudge their
gain ?
Admittedly, they deliver little, more or less. You, on the other hand,
deliver even less. So, once more, why do you grumble about their
benefit ?
Why would your grudge and grumble, with your nil delivery capability,
be heard at all ?
This is not to make you feel small, but to bring your feet on the
ground !
On Nov 8, 6:41 pm, archytas <nwte...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> I suspect 'doubt in use' is extremely complex. I doubt politicians,
> but what might this mean? Anything from thinking of them as 'self-
> interested scumbags' to fears 'aliens take their families hostage as
> soon as they get in power'! The politicians certainly don't appear to
> be able to doubt some kind of central theme or dogma that gets hold of
> them once they can change things.
> On 8 Nov, 13:35, Molly Brogan <mollybro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > the dark night before the dawn
> > On Nov 8, 8:31 am, archytas <nwte...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > You are no doubt right Molly, though dangers of 'discernment Nazis'
> > > remain. I've just been reading some HRM "research" making the usual
> > > vapid claims that we could summarise as 'Eight out of ten people
> > > prefer designing their own jobs to eating powdered glass, this
> > > confirming HRM is wonderful'. The problem is not becoming so cosy in
> > > discernment that all one can offer is positive gloss.
> > > I prefer the Kantian sublime in these areas to radical doubt and
> > > recognition that renewal processes are necessary from time to time
> > > (perhaps even potlach). Life is in some kind of cycle with decay
> > > after all.
> > > > doubt, I think, has an emotional or psychological element to it as can
> > > > be seen in Webster's definition:
> > > > to be afraid of : FEAR -- used with an infinitive phrase or a clause
> > > > as object
> > > > to lack confidence in : DISTRUST, SUSPECT <find myself doubting him
> > > > even when I know that he is honest -- H.L.Mencken> b : to be inclined
> > > > not to believe or accept : consider unlikely or improbable
> > > > to be uncertain or undecided in opinion or belief
> > > > discernment, I think, has a more integrated approach, leaving us less
> > > > in fear, distrust and uncertainly, and leading us more into greater
> > > > possibility (again I will reference Webster):
> > > > to sense or come to know or recognize mentally especially something
> > > > that is hidden or obscure <the inductive apprehension of a truth
> > > > imperfectly discerned -- B.N.Cardozo> <the ability to discern and
> > > > analyze the essentials of complicated questions -- K.C.Wheare>
> > > > to mark as separate and distinct : put a distinguishing mark upon b :
> > > > to recognize or identify as separate and distinct : DIFFERENTIATE,
> > > > DISCRIMINATE <discern right from wrong> <discern the false from the
> > > > genuine>
> > > > intransitive verb : to see or understand the difference : to make
> > > > distinction <discern between good and evil>
> > > > in other words, when we discern, we reveal to ourselves what was
> > > > hidden, recognize more or discriminate. When we doubt, we seem to
> > > > stop there and go no further, disregarding what we doubt and remaining
> > > > ourselves, in doubt.
> > > > The material Francis presents suggests the importance of moving beyond
> > > > the doubt and find the greater wisdom, or, in essence, move from doubt
> > > > to discernment. To this I say, Bravo! because in doing so, we may
> > > > reach a point where doubt is replaced by discernment and no longer
> > > > necessary.
> > > > On Nov 7, 10:56 pm, archytas <nwte...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Once we are into doubting when do we start to doubt doubt? What would
> > > > > be the 'rules' of doubting? Even Descartes wasn't a radical doubter.
> > > > > There are some epistemological answers. Most of us wouldn't take the
> > > > > idea that Tony Blair is CIA that seriously - yet in fleshing out what
> > > > > might be entailed if he is we might well find serious reasons to doubt
> > > > > the integrity of our political system and change it.
> > > > > > On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 12:40 AM, frantheman <francis.h...@googlemail.com>wrote:
> > > > > > > I'm reading a marvellous book at the moment; "Doubt: A History", by
> > > > > > > Jennifer Michael Hecht (HarperCollins, NY, 2004).
> > > > > > >http://www.amazon.com/Doubt-Doubters-Innovation-Jefferson-Dickinson/d...
> > > > > > > In it the author, an historian and poet, takes an eloquent trip
> > > > > > > through the whole history of ideas, from the pre-Socratics and the
> > > > > > > Buddha to Salman Rushdie and the Brights, tracing the story of
> > > > > > > questioning certainties throughout the ages. She quotes Pierre
> > > > > > > Charron, a student of Michel de Montaigne, who wrote in his book "Of
> > > > > > > Wisdom" (1601) concerning doubt:
> > > > > > > "It alone can provide true repose and security of our spirits. Have
> > > > > > > all the greatest and most noble philosophers and wise men who have
> > > > > > > professed doubt been in a state of anxiety and suffering? But they
> > > > > > > say: to doubt, to consider both points of view, to put off a decision,
> > > > > > > is this not painful? I reply, it is indeed for fools, but not for wise
> > > > > > > men. It is painful for people who cannot stand freedom, for those who
> > > > > > > are presumptuous, partisan, passionate and who, obstinately attached
> > > > > > > to their opinions, arrogantly condemn all others ... Such people, in
> > > > > > > truth, know nothing. They do not even know what it is to know
> > > > > > > something."
> > > > > > > (Hecht, p. 307)
> > > > > > > It's a marvellous pageant of priests, philosophers and poets,
> > > > > > > scientists, heretics and oddballs who all dared to "step outside the
> > > > > > > box" and question the conventional wisdoms of their environments,
> > > > > > > frequently at the cost of intense internal spiritual suffering and
> > > > > > > external opprobrium and persecution. Not all of them are atheists, she
> > > > > > > includes figures such as Jesus and Augustine as well, but all of them
> > > > > > > are people who dared to doubt, to question.
> > > > > > > It strikes me that Charron's view of wise searchers as those who dare
> > > > > > > "to doubt, to consider both points of view, to put off a decision" is
> > > > > > > not a bad aphorism for us here on ME.
You're right, of course, Francis, and I probably see too many people
steeped in doubt - stuck there as the emotional thrill of doubting
provides more than the listening or discovery beyond doubt. Being
attached to doubt to allow opposition and argumentation, I think, is a
real show stopper, and I see far too much of it. However, if we don't
stop there, and can immerse ourselves not only in the object of doubt
but the possibilities of more, doubt becomes the vehicle for change.
There are other vehicles at our disposal, but if doubt is handy, and
we can get beyond it, why not?
On Nov 8, 12:09 pm, frantheman <francis.h...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> The broad theme of Hecht's book is to trace the history of "doubt" as
> a particular theme throughout the whole history of ideas. In western
> terms, this begins with the pre-Socratics questioning the polytheistic
> Hellenic religious view of the world; in a Jewish context, she looks
> at the Books of Job and Ecclesiastes (Quoleth); in India she sees
> Suddhartha/Buddha challenging the conventional Brahmin-dominated,
> hierarchical view of karma/samsara/moksha. But much of the book has,
> of course, to do with the stories of those who were "atheists", who
> denied the pictures of God (and religion) generally accepted in their
> societies.
> What I particularly liked about the passage from Charron I quoted is
> its epistemological modesty - its championing of the possibility of
> one's own fallibility:
> Have all the greatest and most noble philosophers and wise men who
> have
> professed doubt been in a state of anxiety and suffering? But they
> say: to doubt, to consider both points of view, to put off a
> decision,
> is this not painful? I reply, it is indeed for fools, but not for
> wise
> men. It is painful for people who cannot stand freedom, for those who
> are presumptuous, partisan, passionate and who, obstinately attached
> to their opinions, arrogantly condemn all others ... "
> Or, as Oliver Cromwell (not always a champion of tolerance!) famously
> put it:
> "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be
> mistaken!"
> It seems to me that a cultivation of such an attitude is helpful in
> many circumstances; to give but one example, it enables us to truly
> listen to what others are saying.
> Francis
> On 8 Nov., 17:38, archytas <nwte...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > I've thought for as long time that the ontology, epistemology,
> > methodology base itself makes almost no sense. One can be
> > ontologically relativist and yet want a realist-empiricist
> > epistemology, and relativism itself implies realism. Doubt can become
> > a very practical form of correction. We may simply not want to become
> > overbearingly smug, sanctimonious sellers of oration. Perhaps is we
> > didn't use the term doubt and admitted to 'fuck me I could be wrong'
> > we might have naturalised to psychology what philosophy can't handle?
> > > I appreciate your comments Frantheman re doubt.... My soon to be published book on Demystifying Meaningful Coincidences (Synchronicities) started with my being a defacto Jungian who over the course of my personal and professional experiences began to doubt his basic assumptions.
> > > To do justice to the study of these challenging anomalies requies a serious student to view their nature through the composite lens of such fields of knowledgte including speculative philosophy, depth psychology, science, aspects of the esoteric occult and spirituality.
> > > In so doing there is a clear argument between the Platonists (Jungians) and the Aristotelians ( a couple of naturalists including myself). Each begins with an alternative primary assumption about the nature of reality (ontology) and how reality is known (epistemology).
> > > My serious investigation began when I realized that Jung's categorical assertion that he doubts as to whether a rational explanation of these events is even possible.... I doubted the doubter..
> > > In reading the details of his thinking (and appreciating some of the massive blindspots in his personality affecting his radical anti scientific point of view_ I realised his assertions raise more questions than provide absolute answers.
> > > Among the questions raised are: what is the nature of causality.... If you eliminate conventional scientific linear logic (causality) as an inadequate explanatory principle to understand the link between the inner event and the outer event in all synchronicities - then before you dismiss causality as a rational explanation - (throwing out the baby with the bath ) is there perhaps a need to expland the concept of causality? Additionally since meaning is a core concept - then there has to be a thorough understanding as to the meaning of meaning. This Jung does not do.
> > > He assumes there is a reality of so called absolute meaning apart from human interpretation that can be channeled and its 'wisdom' extracted.... I think this assumption is seductive but fanciful.. At least I doubt it strongly....
> > > There are other questions which I dlubted and took seriously all of which became the culmination of my original naturalistic theory of synchronicities....
> > > I doubt I will turn any comitted Jungians to doubt but I don't doubt that my doubting has been in vain.
> > > At least I for one feel that I have done a great deal to reenter the mind and rationality into the discussion largely dominated by intution, so called spirituality, and magical thinking.
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: frantheman <francis.h...@googlemail.com>
> > > To: "Minds Eye" <minds-eye@googlegroups.com>
> > > Sent: Sat, Nov 7, 2009 3:40 am
> > > Subject: [Mind's Eye] In Praise of Doubt
> > > 'm reading a marvellous book at the moment; "Doubt: A History", by
> > > ennifer Michael Hecht (HarperCollins, NY, 2004).
> > > ttp://www.amazon.com/Doubt-Doubters-Innovation-Jefferson-Dickinson/dp/00600...
> > > n it the author, an historian and poet, takes an eloquent trip
> > > hrough the whole history of ideas, from the pre-Socratics and the
> > > uddha to Salman Rushdie and the Brights, tracing the story of
> > > uestioning certainties throughout the ages. She quotes Pierre
> > > harron, a student of Michel de Montaigne, who wrote in his book "Of
> > > isdom" (1601) concerning doubt:
> > > "It alone can provide true repose and security of our spirits. Have
> > > ll the greatest and most noble philosophers and wise men who have
> > > rofessed doubt been in a state of anxiety and suffering? But they
> > > ay: to doubt, to consider both points of view, to put off a decision,
> > > s this not painful? I reply, it is indeed for fools, but not for wise
> > > en. It is painful for people who cannot stand freedom, for those who
> > > re presumptuous, partisan, passionate and who, obstinately attached
> > > o their opinions, arrogantly condemn all others ... Such people, in
> > > ruth, know nothing. They do not even know what it is to know
> > > omething."
> > > Hecht, p. 307)
> > > It's a marvellous pageant of priests, philosophers and poets,
> > > cientists, heretics and oddballs who all dared to "step outside the
> > > ox" and question the conventional wisdoms of their environments,
> > > requently at the cost of intense internal spiritual suffering and
> > > xternal opprobrium and persecution. Not all of them are atheists, she
> > > ncludes figures such as Jesus and Augustine as well, but all of them
> > > re people who dared to doubt, to question.
> > > It strikes me that Charron's view of wise searchers as those who dare
> > > to doubt, to consider both points of view, to put off a decision" is
> > > ot a bad aphorism for us here on ME.
> > > Francis
> > > -~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
> > > ou received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > > "Minds Eye"" group.
> > > o post to this group, send email to minds-eye@googlegroups.com
> > > o unsubscribe from this group, send email to minds-eye+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
> > > or more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en > > > ~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
" ... it enables us to truly listen to what others are saying."
Only to ascertain the merit in the person, and no more ! Let not
listening to others become a virtue beyond that. However, one must
continue to listen to oneself, whether that ( which one says to
oneself ) be right or wrong.
On Nov 8, 10:09 pm, frantheman <francis.h...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> The broad theme of Hecht's book is to trace the history of "doubt" as
> a particular theme throughout the whole history of ideas. In western
> terms, this begins with the pre-Socratics questioning the polytheistic
> Hellenic religious view of the world; in a Jewish context, she looks
> at the Books of Job and Ecclesiastes (Quoleth); in India she sees
> Suddhartha/Buddha challenging the conventional Brahmin-dominated,
> hierarchical view of karma/samsara/moksha. But much of the book has,
> of course, to do with the stories of those who were "atheists", who
> denied the pictures of God (and religion) generally accepted in their
> societies.
> What I particularly liked about the passage from Charron I quoted is
> its epistemological modesty - its championing of the possibility of
> one's own fallibility:
> Have all the greatest and most noble philosophers and wise men who
> have
> professed doubt been in a state of anxiety and suffering? But they
> say: to doubt, to consider both points of view, to put off a
> decision,
> is this not painful? I reply, it is indeed for fools, but not for
> wise
> men. It is painful for people who cannot stand freedom, for those who
> are presumptuous, partisan, passionate and who, obstinately attached
> to their opinions, arrogantly condemn all others ... "
> Or, as Oliver Cromwell (not always a champion of tolerance!) famously
> put it:
> "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be
> mistaken!"
> It seems to me that a cultivation of such an attitude is helpful in
> many circumstances; to give but one example, it enables us to truly
> listen to what others are saying.
> Francis
> On 8 Nov., 17:38, archytas <nwte...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > I've thought for as long time that the ontology, epistemology,
> > methodology base itself makes almost no sense. One can be
> > ontologically relativist and yet want a realist-empiricist
> > epistemology, and relativism itself implies realism. Doubt can become
> > a very practical form of correction. We may simply not want to become
> > overbearingly smug, sanctimonious sellers of oration. Perhaps is we
> > didn't use the term doubt and admitted to 'fuck me I could be wrong'
> > we might have naturalised to psychology what philosophy can't handle?
> > > I appreciate your comments Frantheman re doubt.... My soon to be published book on Demystifying Meaningful Coincidences (Synchronicities) started with my being a defacto Jungian who over the course of my personal and professional experiences began to doubt his basic assumptions.
> > > To do justice to the study of these challenging anomalies requies a serious student to view their nature through the composite lens of such fields of knowledgte including speculative philosophy, depth psychology, science, aspects of the esoteric occult and spirituality.
> > > In so doing there is a clear argument between the Platonists (Jungians) and the Aristotelians ( a couple of naturalists including myself). Each begins with an alternative primary assumption about the nature of reality (ontology) and how reality is known (epistemology).
> > > My serious investigation began when I realized that Jung's categorical assertion that he doubts as to whether a rational explanation of these events is even possible.... I doubted the doubter..
> > > In reading the details of his thinking (and appreciating some of the massive blindspots in his personality affecting his radical anti scientific point of view_ I realised his assertions raise more questions than provide absolute answers.
> > > Among the questions raised are: what is the nature of causality.... If you eliminate conventional scientific linear logic (causality) as an inadequate explanatory principle to understand the link between the inner event and the outer event in all synchronicities - then before you dismiss causality as a rational explanation - (throwing out the baby with the bath ) is there perhaps a need to expland the concept of causality? Additionally since meaning is a core concept - then there has to be a thorough understanding as to the meaning of meaning. This Jung does not do.
> > > He assumes there is a reality of so called absolute meaning apart from human interpretation that can be channeled and its 'wisdom' extracted.... I think this assumption is seductive but fanciful.. At least I doubt it strongly....
> > > There are other questions which I dlubted and took seriously all of which became the culmination of my original naturalistic theory of synchronicities....
> > > I doubt I will turn any comitted Jungians to doubt but I don't doubt that my doubting has been in vain.
> > > At least I for one feel that I have done a great deal to reenter the mind and rationality into the discussion largely dominated by intution, so called spirituality, and magical thinking.
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: frantheman <francis.h...@googlemail.com>
> > > To: "Minds Eye" <minds-eye@googlegroups.com>
> > > Sent: Sat, Nov 7, 2009 3:40 am
> > > Subject: [Mind's Eye] In Praise of Doubt
> > > 'm reading a marvellous book at the moment; "Doubt: A History", by
> > > ennifer Michael Hecht (HarperCollins, NY, 2004).
> > > ttp://www.amazon.com/Doubt-Doubters-Innovation-Jefferson-Dickinson/dp/00600...
> > > n it the author, an historian and poet, takes an eloquent trip
> > > hrough the whole history of ideas, from the pre-Socratics and the
> > > uddha to Salman Rushdie and the Brights, tracing the story of
> > > uestioning certainties throughout the ages. She quotes Pierre
> > > harron, a student of Michel de Montaigne, who wrote in his book "Of
> > > isdom" (1601) concerning doubt:
> > > "It alone can provide true repose and security of our spirits. Have
> > > ll the greatest and most noble philosophers and wise men who have
> > > rofessed doubt been in a state of anxiety and suffering? But they
> > > ay: to doubt, to consider both points of view, to put off a decision,
> > > s this not painful? I reply, it is indeed for fools, but not for wise
> > > en. It is painful for people who cannot stand freedom, for those who
> > > re presumptuous, partisan, passionate and who, obstinately attached
> > > o their opinions, arrogantly condemn all others ... Such people, in
> > > ruth, know nothing. They do not even know what it is to know
> > > omething."
> > > Hecht, p. 307)
> > > It's a marvellous pageant of priests, philosophers and poets,
> > > cientists, heretics and oddballs who all dared to "step outside the
> > > ox" and question the conventional wisdoms of their environments,
> > > requently at the cost of intense internal spiritual suffering and
> > > xternal opprobrium and persecution. Not all of them are atheists, she
> > > ncludes figures such as Jesus and Augustine as well, but all of them
> > > re people who dared to doubt, to question.
> > > It strikes me that Charron's view of wise searchers as those who dare
> > > to doubt, to consider both points of view, to put off a decision" is
> > > ot a bad aphorism for us here on ME.
> > > Francis
> > > -~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
> > > ou received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > > "Minds Eye"" group.
> > > o post to this group, send email to minds-eye@googlegroups.com
> > > o unsubscribe from this group, send email to minds-eye+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
> > > or more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en > > > ~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---- Hide quoted text -
I think you understand, Molly, that I'm not arguing in favour of
laissez-faire reletavism here. There are better and worse answers to
most things. It is important for us to stand up for our principles and
defend them against other positions we judge to be less convincing.
Yet we should be careful of certainties. There is, I hope, growth in
wisdom. And there are enough situations in life where an argument (or
sometimes just a comment) from someone else may bring us to the
realisation; I never thought of that, or, I never saw it that way
before. But this can only happen if we are prepared to let go of our
certainties, to be open to growing, to change. This is what makes me
suspicious of absolutes; something to which religions are often prone.
This attitude is what I understand Charron is arguing for - something
particularly impressive coming from someone at the beginning of the
17th. Century.
Francis
On 8 Nov., 19:02, Molly Brogan <mollybro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You're right, of course, Francis, and I probably see too many people
> steeped in doubt - stuck there as the emotional thrill of doubting
> provides more than the listening or discovery beyond doubt. Being
> attached to doubt to allow opposition and argumentation, I think, is a
> real show stopper, and I see far too much of it. However, if we don't
> stop there, and can immerse ourselves not only in the object of doubt
> but the possibilities of more, doubt becomes the vehicle for change.
> There are other vehicles at our disposal, but if doubt is handy, and
> we can get beyond it, why not?
> On Nov 8, 12:09 pm, frantheman <francis.h...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > The broad theme of Hecht's book is to trace the history of "doubt" as
> > a particular theme throughout the whole history of ideas. In western
> > terms, this begins with the pre-Socratics questioning the polytheistic
> > Hellenic religious view of the world; in a Jewish context, she looks
> > at the Books of Job and Ecclesiastes (Quoleth); in India she sees
> > Suddhartha/Buddha challenging the conventional Brahmin-dominated,
> > hierarchical view of karma/samsara/moksha. But much of the book has,
> > of course, to do with the stories of those who were "atheists", who
> > denied the pictures of God (and religion) generally accepted in their
> > societies.
> > What I particularly liked about the passage from Charron I quoted is
> > its epistemological modesty - its championing of the possibility of
> > one's own fallibility:
> > Have all the greatest and most noble philosophers and wise men who
> > have
> > professed doubt been in a state of anxiety and suffering? But they
> > say: to doubt, to consider both points of view, to put off a
> > decision,
> > is this not painful? I reply, it is indeed for fools, but not for
> > wise
> > men. It is painful for people who cannot stand freedom, for those who
> > are presumptuous, partisan, passionate and who, obstinately attached
> > to their opinions, arrogantly condemn all others ... "
> > Or, as Oliver Cromwell (not always a champion of tolerance!) famously
> > put it:
> > "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be
> > mistaken!"
> > It seems to me that a cultivation of such an attitude is helpful in
> > many circumstances; to give but one example, it enables us to truly
> > listen to what others are saying.
> > Francis
> > On 8 Nov., 17:38, archytas <nwte...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > I've thought for as long time that the ontology, epistemology,
> > > methodology base itself makes almost no sense. One can be
> > > ontologically relativist and yet want a realist-empiricist
> > > epistemology, and relativism itself implies realism. Doubt can become
> > > a very practical form of correction. We may simply not want to become
> > > overbearingly smug, sanctimonious sellers of oration. Perhaps is we
> > > didn't use the term doubt and admitted to 'fuck me I could be wrong'
> > > we might have naturalised to psychology what philosophy can't handle?
> > > On 8 Nov, 16:08, gwilliamsn...@aol.com wrote:
> > > > I appreciate your comments Frantheman re doubt.... My soon to be published book on Demystifying Meaningful Coincidences (Synchronicities) started with my being a defacto Jungian who over the course of my personal and professional experiences began to doubt his basic assumptions.
> > > > To do justice to the study of these challenging anomalies requies a serious student to view their nature through the composite lens of such fields of knowledgte including speculative philosophy, depth psychology, science, aspects of the esoteric occult and spirituality.
> > > > In so doing there is a clear argument between the Platonists (Jungians) and the Aristotelians ( a couple of naturalists including myself). Each begins with an alternative primary assumption about the nature of reality (ontology) and how reality is known (epistemology).
> > > > My serious investigation began when I realized that Jung's categorical assertion that he doubts as to whether a rational explanation of these events is even possible.... I doubted the doubter..
> > > > In reading the details of his thinking (and appreciating some of the massive blindspots in his personality affecting his radical anti scientific point of view_ I realised his assertions raise more questions than provide absolute answers.
> > > > Among the questions raised are: what is the nature of causality.... If you eliminate conventional scientific linear logic (causality) as an inadequate explanatory principle to understand the link between the inner event and the outer event in all synchronicities - then before you dismiss causality as a rational explanation - (throwing out the baby with the bath ) is there perhaps a need to expland the concept of causality? Additionally since meaning is a core concept - then there has to be a thorough understanding as to the meaning of meaning. This Jung does not do.
> > > > He assumes there is a reality of so called absolute meaning apart from human interpretation that can be channeled and its 'wisdom' extracted.... I think this assumption is seductive but fanciful.. At least I doubt it strongly....
> > > > There are other questions which I dlubted and took seriously all of which became the culmination of my original naturalistic theory of synchronicities....
> > > > I doubt I will turn any comitted Jungians to doubt but I don't doubt that my doubting has been in vain.
> > > > At least I for one feel that I have done a great deal to reenter the mind and rationality into the discussion largely dominated by intution, so called spirituality, and magical thinking.
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: frantheman <francis.h...@googlemail.com>
> > > > To: "Minds Eye" <minds-eye@googlegroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Sat, Nov 7, 2009 3:40 am
> > > > Subject: [Mind's Eye] In Praise of Doubt
> > > > 'm reading a marvellous book at the moment; "Doubt: A History", by
> > > > ennifer Michael Hecht (HarperCollins, NY, 2004).
> > > > ttp://www.amazon.com/Doubt-Doubters-Innovation-Jefferson-Dickinson/dp/00600...
> > > > n it the author, an historian and poet, takes an eloquent trip
> > > > hrough the whole history of ideas, from the pre-Socratics and the
> > > > uddha to Salman Rushdie and the Brights, tracing the story of
> > > > uestioning certainties throughout the ages. She quotes Pierre
> > > > harron, a student of Michel de Montaigne, who wrote in his book "Of
> > > > isdom" (1601) concerning doubt:
> > > > "It alone can provide true repose and security of our spirits. Have
> > > > ll the greatest and most noble philosophers and wise men who have
> > > > rofessed doubt been in a state of anxiety and suffering? But they
> > > > ay: to doubt, to consider both points of view, to put off a decision,
> > > > s this not painful? I reply, it is indeed for fools, but not for wise
> > > > en. It is painful for people who cannot stand freedom, for those who
> > > > re presumptuous, partisan, passionate and who, obstinately attached
> > > > o their opinions, arrogantly condemn all others ... Such people, in
> > > > ruth, know nothing. They do not even know what it is to know
> > > > omething."
> > > > Hecht, p. 307)
> > > > It's a marvellous pageant of priests, philosophers and poets,
> > > > cientists, heretics and oddballs who all dared to "step outside the
> > > > ox" and question the conventional wisdoms of their environments,
> > > > requently at the cost of intense internal spiritual suffering and
> > > > xternal opprobrium and persecution. Not all of them are atheists, she
> > > > ncludes figures such as Jesus and Augustine as well, but all of them
> > > > re people who dared to doubt, to question.
> > > > It strikes me that Charron's view of wise searchers as those who dare
> > > > to doubt, to consider both points of view, to put off a decision" is
> > > > ot a bad aphorism for us here on ME.
> > > > Francis
> > > > -~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
> > > > ou received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > > > "Minds Eye"" group.
> > > > o post to this group, send email to minds-eye@googlegroups.com
> > > > o unsubscribe from this group, send email to minds-eye+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
> > > > or more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en > > > > ~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
I'm listening. I get your point and I believe every thinking person
sees the benefits in examining a problem from every conceivable angle.
Doubt is useful in that it helps prepare one for contingencies.
Thank goodness we are passed the days when those of us who buck the
common wisdom of the day are forced to drink hemlock.
I'm just off a very bad night seeing my freedoms begin the swirling
motion that preludes the sucking sound and ultimate flushing into the
sewers of socialism. I'm a bit bitter at the moment and wishing my
Congress had utilized a bit of doubt themselves. Just thinking of the
shit-eating grin on Pelosi's face last night turns my stomach. I
can't help but think what we are being told will cost 1.2 trillion
will in truth be much closer to 3 trillion after all is said and done.
In much the same way we have squandered what should have been social
security reserves we will ruin any chance this boondoggle has of being
successful. Too many people see the government as Magic Money Makers
when in fact all they do is consume voraciously.
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 11:09 AM, frantheman <francis.h...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> The broad theme of Hecht's book is to trace the history of "doubt" as
> a particular theme throughout the whole history of ideas. In western
> terms, this begins with the pre-Socratics questioning the polytheistic
> Hellenic religious view of the world; in a Jewish context, she looks
> at the Books of Job and Ecclesiastes (Quoleth); in India she sees
> Suddhartha/Buddha challenging the conventional Brahmin-dominated,
> hierarchical view of karma/samsara/moksha. But much of the book has,
> of course, to do with the stories of those who were "atheists", who
> denied the pictures of God (and religion) generally accepted in their
> societies.
> What I particularly liked about the passage from Charron I quoted is
> its epistemological modesty - its championing of the possibility of
> one's own fallibility:
> Have all the greatest and most noble philosophers and wise men who
> have
> professed doubt been in a state of anxiety and suffering? But they
> say: to doubt, to consider both points of view, to put off a
> decision,
> is this not painful? I reply, it is indeed for fools, but not for
> wise
> men. It is painful for people who cannot stand freedom, for those who
> are presumptuous, partisan, passionate and who, obstinately attached
> to their opinions, arrogantly condemn all others ... "
> Or, as Oliver Cromwell (not always a champion of tolerance!) famously
> put it:
> "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be
> mistaken!"
> It seems to me that a cultivation of such an attitude is helpful in
> many circumstances; to give but one example, it enables us to truly
> listen to what others are saying.
> Francis
> On 8 Nov., 17:38, archytas <nwte...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> I've thought for as long time that the ontology, epistemology,
>> methodology base itself makes almost no sense. One can be
>> ontologically relativist and yet want a realist-empiricist
>> epistemology, and relativism itself implies realism. Doubt can become
>> a very practical form of correction. We may simply not want to become
>> overbearingly smug, sanctimonious sellers of oration. Perhaps is we
>> didn't use the term doubt and admitted to 'fuck me I could be wrong'
>> we might have naturalised to psychology what philosophy can't handle?
>> > I appreciate your comments Frantheman re doubt.... My soon to be published book on Demystifying Meaningful Coincidences (Synchronicities) started with my being a defacto Jungian who over the course of my personal and professional experiences began to doubt his basic assumptions.
>> > To do justice to the study of these challenging anomalies requies a serious student to view their nature through the composite lens of such fields of knowledgte including speculative philosophy, depth psychology, science, aspects of the esoteric occult and spirituality.
>> > In so doing there is a clear argument between the Platonists (Jungians) and the Aristotelians ( a couple of naturalists including myself). Each begins with an alternative primary assumption about the nature of reality (ontology) and how reality is known (epistemology).
>> > My serious investigation began when I realized that Jung's categorical assertion that he doubts as to whether a rational explanation of these events is even possible.... I doubted the doubter..
>> > In reading the details of his thinking (and appreciating some of the massive blindspots in his personality affecting his radical anti scientific point of view_ I realised his assertions raise more questions than provide absolute answers.
>> > Among the questions raised are: what is the nature of causality.... If you eliminate conventional scientific linear logic (causality) as an inadequate explanatory principle to understand the link between the inner event and the outer event in all synchronicities - then before you dismiss causality as a rational explanation - (throwing out the baby with the bath ) is there perhaps a need to expland the concept of causality? Additionally since meaning is a core concept - then there has to be a thorough understanding as to the meaning of meaning. This Jung does not do.
>> > He assumes there is a reality of so called absolute meaning apart from human interpretation that can be channeled and its 'wisdom' extracted.... I think this assumption is seductive but fanciful.. At least I doubt it strongly....
>> > There are other questions which I dlubted and took seriously all of which became the culmination of my original naturalistic theory of synchronicities....
>> > I doubt I will turn any comitted Jungians to doubt but I don't doubt that my doubting has been in vain.
>> > At least I for one feel that I have done a great deal to reenter the mind and rationality into the discussion largely dominated by intution, so called spirituality, and magical thinking.
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: frantheman <francis.h...@googlemail.com>
>> > To: "Minds Eye" <minds-eye@googlegroups.com>
>> > Sent: Sat, Nov 7, 2009 3:40 am
>> > Subject: [Mind's Eye] In Praise of Doubt
>> > 'm reading a marvellous book at the moment; "Doubt: A History", by
>> > ennifer Michael Hecht (HarperCollins, NY, 2004).
>> > ttp://www.amazon.com/Doubt-Doubters-Innovation-Jefferson-Dickinson/dp/00600...
>> > n it the author, an historian and poet, takes an eloquent trip
>> > hrough the whole history of ideas, from the pre-Socratics and the
>> > uddha to Salman Rushdie and the Brights, tracing the story of
>> > uestioning certainties throughout the ages. She quotes Pierre
>> > harron, a student of Michel de Montaigne, who wrote in his book "Of
>> > isdom" (1601) concerning doubt:
>> > "It alone can provide true repose and security of our spirits. Have
>> > ll the greatest and most noble philosophers and wise men who have
>> > rofessed doubt been in a state of anxiety and suffering? But they
>> > ay: to doubt, to consider both points of view, to put off a decision,
>> > s this not painful? I reply, it is indeed for fools, but not for wise
>> > en. It is painful for people who cannot stand freedom, for those who
>> > re presumptuous, partisan, passionate and who, obstinately attached
>> > o their opinions, arrogantly condemn all others ... Such people, in
>> > ruth, know nothing. They do not even know what it is to know
>> > omething."
>> > Hecht, p. 307)
>> > It's a marvellous pageant of priests, philosophers and poets,
>> > cientists, heretics and oddballs who all dared to "step outside the
>> > ox" and question the conventional wisdoms of their environments,
>> > requently at the cost of intense internal spiritual suffering and
>> > xternal opprobrium and persecution. Not all of them are atheists, she
>> > ncludes figures such as Jesus and Augustine as well, but all of them
>> > re people who dared to doubt, to question.
>> > It strikes me that Charron's view of wise searchers as those who dare
>> > to doubt, to consider both points of view, to put off a decision" is
>> > ot a bad aphorism for us here on ME.
>> > Francis
>> > -~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
>> > ou received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> > "Minds Eye"" group.
>> > o post to this group, send email to minds-eye@googlegroups.com
>> > o unsubscribe from this group, send email to minds-eye+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
>> > or more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en >> > ~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
> I'm listening. I get your point and I believe every thinking person
> sees the benefits in examining a problem from every conceivable angle.
> Doubt is useful in that it helps prepare one for contingencies.
> Thank goodness we are passed the days when those of us who buck the
> common wisdom of the day are forced to drink hemlock.
> I'm just off a very bad night seeing my freedoms begin the swirling
> motion that preludes the sucking sound and ultimate flushing into the
> sewers of socialism. I'm a bit bitter at the moment and wishing my
> Congress had utilized a bit of doubt themselves. Just thinking of the
> shit-eating grin on Pelosi's face last night turns my stomach. I
> can't help but think what we are being told will cost 1.2 trillion
> will in truth be much closer to 3 trillion after all is said and done.
> In much the same way we have squandered what should have been social
> security reserves we will ruin any chance this boondoggle has of being
> successful. Too many people see the government as Magic Money Makers
> when in fact all they do is consume voraciously.
> Fuck me but I could be totally wrong about this.
> dj
> On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 11:09 AM, frantheman <francis.h...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > The broad theme of Hecht's book is to trace the history of "doubt" as
> > a particular theme throughout the whole history of ideas. In western
> > terms, this begins with the pre-Socratics questioning the polytheistic
> > Hellenic religious view of the world; in a Jewish context, she looks
> > at the Books of Job and Ecclesiastes (Quoleth); in India she sees
> > Suddhartha/Buddha challenging the conventional Brahmin-dominated,
> > hierarchical view of karma/samsara/moksha. But much of the book has,
> > of course, to do with the stories of those who were "atheists", who
> > denied the pictures of God (and religion) generally accepted in their
> > societies.
> > What I particularly liked about the passage from Charron I quoted is
> > its epistemological modesty - its championing of the possibility of
> > one's own fallibility:
> > Have all the greatest and most noble philosophers and wise men who
> > have
> > professed doubt been in a state of anxiety and suffering? But they
> > say: to doubt, to consider both points of view, to put off a
> > decision,
> > is this not painful? I reply, it is indeed for fools, but not for
> > wise
> > men. It is painful for people who cannot stand freedom, for those who
> > are presumptuous, partisan, passionate and who, obstinately attached
> > to their opinions, arrogantly condemn all others ... "
> > Or, as Oliver Cromwell (not always a champion of tolerance!) famously
> > put it:
> > "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be
> > mistaken!"
> > It seems to me that a cultivation of such an attitude is helpful in
> > many circumstances; to give but one example, it enables us to truly
> > listen to what others are saying.
> > Francis
> > On 8 Nov., 17:38, archytas <nwte...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >> I've thought for as long time that the ontology, epistemology,
> >> methodology base itself makes almost no sense. One can be
> >> ontologically relativist and yet want a realist-empiricist
> >> epistemology, and relativism itself implies realism. Doubt can become
> >> a very practical form of correction. We may simply not want to become
> >> overbearingly smug, sanctimonious sellers of oration. Perhaps is we
> >> didn't use the term doubt and admitted to 'fuck me I could be wrong'
> >> we might have naturalised to psychology what philosophy can't handle?
> >> On 8 Nov, 16:08, gwilliamsn...@aol.com wrote:
> >> > I appreciate your comments Frantheman re doubt.... My soon to be published book on Demystifying Meaningful Coincidences (Synchronicities) started with my being a defacto Jungian who over the course of my personal and professional experiences began to doubt his basic assumptions.
> >> > To do justice to the study of these challenging anomalies requies a serious student to view their nature through the composite lens of such fields of knowledgte including speculative philosophy, depth psychology, science, aspects of the esoteric occult and spirituality.
> >> > In so doing there is a clear argument between the Platonists (Jungians) and the Aristotelians ( a couple of naturalists including myself). Each begins with an alternative primary assumption about the nature of reality (ontology) and how reality is known (epistemology).
> >> > My serious investigation began when I realized that Jung's categorical assertion that he doubts as to whether a rational explanation of these events is even possible.... I doubted the doubter..
> >> > In reading the details of his thinking (and appreciating some of the massive blindspots in his personality affecting his radical anti scientific point of view_ I realised his assertions raise more questions than provide absolute answers.
> >> > Among the questions raised are: what is the nature of causality.... If you eliminate conventional scientific linear logic (causality) as an inadequate explanatory principle to understand the link between the inner event and the outer event in all synchronicities - then before you dismiss causality as a rational explanation - (throwing out the baby with the bath ) is there perhaps a need to expland the concept of causality? Additionally since meaning is a core concept - then there has to be a thorough understanding as to the meaning of meaning. This Jung does not do.
> >> > He assumes there is a reality of so called absolute meaning apart from human interpretation that can be channeled and its 'wisdom' extracted.... I think this assumption is seductive but fanciful.. At least I doubt it strongly....
> >> > There are other questions which I dlubted and took seriously all of which became the culmination of my original naturalistic theory of synchronicities....
> >> > I doubt I will turn any comitted Jungians to doubt but I don't doubt that my doubting has been in vain.
> >> > At least I for one feel that I have done a great deal to reenter the mind and rationality into the discussion largely dominated by intution, so called spirituality, and magical thinking.
> >> > -----Original Message-----
> >> > From: frantheman <francis.h...@googlemail.com>
> >> > To: "Minds Eye" <minds-eye@googlegroups.com>
> >> > Sent: Sat, Nov 7, 2009 3:40 am
> >> > Subject: [Mind's Eye] In Praise of Doubt
> >> > 'm reading a marvellous book at the moment; "Doubt: A History", by
> >> > ennifer Michael Hecht (HarperCollins, NY, 2004).
> >> > ttp://www.amazon.com/Doubt-Doubters-Innovation-Jefferson-Dickinson/dp/00600...
> >> > n it the author, an historian and poet, takes an eloquent trip
> >> > hrough the whole history of ideas, from the pre-Socratics and the
> >> > uddha to Salman Rushdie and the Brights, tracing the story of
> >> > uestioning certainties throughout the ages. She quotes Pierre
> >> > harron, a student of Michel de Montaigne, who wrote in his book "Of
> >> > isdom" (1601) concerning doubt:
> >> > "It alone can provide true repose and security of our spirits. Have
> >> > ll the greatest and most noble philosophers and wise men who have
> >> > rofessed doubt been in a state of anxiety and suffering? But they
> >> > ay: to doubt, to consider both points of view, to put off a decision,
> >> > s this not painful? I reply, it is indeed for fools, but not for wise
> >> > en. It is painful for people who cannot stand freedom, for those who
> >> > re presumptuous, partisan, passionate and who, obstinately attached
> >> > o their opinions, arrogantly condemn all others ... Such people, in
> >> > ruth, know nothing. They do not even know what it is to know
> >> > omething."
> >> > Hecht, p. 307)
> >> > It's a marvellous pageant of priests, philosophers and poets,
> >> > cientists, heretics and oddballs who all dared to "step outside the
> >> > ox" and question the conventional wisdoms of their environments,
> >> > requently at the cost of intense internal spiritual suffering and
> >> > xternal opprobrium and persecution. Not all of them are atheists, she
> >> > ncludes figures such as Jesus and Augustine as well, but all of them
> >> > re people who dared to doubt, to question.
> >> > It strikes me that Charron's view of wise searchers as those who dare
> >> > to doubt, to consider both points of view, to put off a decision" is
> >> > ot a bad aphorism for us here on ME.
> >> > Francis
> >> > -~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
> >> > ou received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> >> > "Minds Eye"" group.
> >> > o post to this group, send email to minds-eye@googlegroups.com
> >> > o unsubscribe from this group, send email to minds-eye+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
> >> > or more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en > >> > ~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
-----Original Message-----
From: Don Johnson <daj...@gmail.com>
To: minds-eye@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sun, Nov 8, 2009 2:47 pm
Subject: [Mind's Eye] Re: In Praise of Doubt
'm listening. I get your point and I believe every thinking person
ees the benefits in examining a problem from every conceivable angle.
Doubt is useful in that it helps prepare one for contingencies.
hank goodness we are passed the days when those of us who buck the
ommon wisdom of the day are forced to drink hemlock.
I'm just off a very bad night seeing my freedoms begin the swirling
otion that preludes the sucking sound and ultimate flushing into the
ewers of socialism. I'm a bit bitter at the moment and wishing my
ongress had utilized a bit of doubt themselves. Just thinking of the
hit-eating grin on Pelosi's face last night turns my stomach. I
an't help but think what we are being told will cost 1.2 trillion
ill in truth be much closer to 3 trillion after all is said and done.
In much the same way we have squandered what should have been social
ecurity reserves we will ruin any chance this boondoggle has of being
uccessful. Too many people see the government as Magic Money Makers
hen in fact all they do is consume voraciously.
Fuck me but I could be totally wrong about this.
dj
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 11:09 AM, frantheman <francis.h...@googlemail.com> wrote:
The broad theme of Hecht's book is to trace the history of "doubt" as
a particular theme throughout the whole history of ideas. In western
terms, this begins with the pre-Socratics questioning the polytheistic
Hellenic religious view of the world; in a Jewish context, she looks
at the Books of Job and Ecclesiastes (Quoleth); in India she sees
Suddhartha/Buddha challenging the conventional Brahmin-dominated,
hierarchical view of karma/samsara/moksha. But much of the book has,
of course, to do with the stories of those who were "atheists", who
denied the pictures of God (and religion) generally accepted in their
societies.
What I particularly liked about the passage from Charron I quoted is
its epistemological modesty - its championing of the possibility of
one's own fallibility:
Have all the greatest and most noble philosophers and wise men who
have
professed doubt been in a state of anxiety and suffering? But they
say: to doubt, to consider both points of view, to put off a
decision,
is this not painful? I reply, it is indeed for fools, but not for
wise
men. It is painful for people who cannot stand freedom, for those who
are presumptuous, partisan, passionate and who, obstinately attached
to their opinions, arrogantly condemn all others ... "
Or, as Oliver Cromwell (not always a champion of tolerance!) famously
put it:
"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be
mistaken!"
It seems to me that a cultivation of such an attitude is helpful in
many circumstances; to give but one example, it enables us to truly
listen to what others are saying.
Francis
On 8 Nov., 17:38, archytas <nwte...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> I've thought for as long time that the ontology, epistemology,
> methodology base itself makes almost no sense. One can be
> ontologically relativist and yet want a realist-empiricist
> epistemology, and relativism itself implies realism. Doubt can become
> a very practical form of correction. We may simply not want to become
> overbearingly smug, sanctimonious sellers of oration. Perhaps is we
> didn't use the term doubt and admitted to 'fuck me I could be wrong'
> we might have naturalised to psychology what philosophy can't handle?
> > I appreciate your comments Frantheman re doubt.... My soon to be published ook on Demystifying Meaningful Coincidences (Synchronicities) started with my eing a defacto Jungian who over the course of my personal and professional xperiences began to doubt his basic assumptions.
> > To do justice to the study of these challenging anomalies requies a serious tudent to view their nature through the composite lens of such fields of nowledgte including speculative philosophy, depth psychology, science, aspects f the esoteric occult and spirituality.
> > In so doing there is a clear argument between the Platonists (Jungians) and he Aristotelians ( a couple of naturalists including myself). Each begins with n alternative primary assumption about the nature of reality (ontology) and how eality is known (epistemology).
> > My serious investigation began when I realized that Jung's categorical ssertion that he doubts as to whether a rational explanation of these events is ven possible.... I doubted the doubter..
> > In reading the details of his thinking (and appreciating some of the assive blindspots in his personality affecting his radical anti scientific oint of view_ I realised his assertions raise more questions than provide bsolute answers.
> > Among the questions raised are: what is the nature of causality.... If you liminate conventional scientific linear logic (causality) as an inadequate xplanatory principle to understand the link between the inner event and the uter event in all synchronicities - then before you dismiss causality as a ational explanation - (throwing out the baby with the bath ) is there perhaps a eed to expland the concept of causality? Additionally since meaning is a core oncept - then there has to be a thorough understanding as to the meaning of eaning. This Jung does not do.
> > He assumes there is a reality of so called absolute meaning apart from uman interpretation that can be channeled and its 'wisdom' extracted.... I hink this assumption is seductive but fanciful.. At least I doubt it trongly....
> > There are other questions which I dlubted and took seriously all of which ecame the culmination of my original naturalistic theory of synchronicities....
> > I doubt I will turn any comitted Jungians to doubt but I don't doubt that y doubting has been in vain.
> > At least I for one feel that I have done a great deal to reenter the mind nd rationality into the discussion largely dominated by intution, so called pirituality, and magical thinking.
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: frantheman <francis.h...@googlemail.com>
> > To: "Minds Eye" <minds-eye@googlegroups.com>
> > Sent: Sat, Nov 7, 2009 3:40 am
> > Subject: [Mind's Eye] In Praise of Doubt
> > 'm reading a marvellous book at the moment; "Doubt: A History", by
> > ennifer Michael Hecht (HarperCollins, NY, 2004).
> > ttp://www.amazon.com/Doubt-Doubters-Innovation-Jefferson-Dickinson/dp/00600...
> > n it the author, an historian and poet, takes an eloquent trip
> > hrough the whole history of ideas, from the pre-Socratics and the
> > uddha to Salman Rushdie and the Brights, tracing the story of
> > uestioning certainties throughout the ages. She quotes Pierre
> > harron, a student of Michel de Montaigne, who wrote in his book "Of
> > isdom" (1601) concerning doubt:
> > "It alone can provide true repose and security of our spirits. Have
> > ll the greatest and most noble philosophers and wise men who have
> > rofessed doubt been in a state of anxiety and suffering? But they
> > ay: to doubt, to consider both points of view, to put off a decision,
> > s this not painful? I reply, it is indeed for fools, but not for wise
> > en. It is painful for people who cannot stand freedom, for those who
> > re presumptuous, partisan, passionate and who, obstinately attached
> > o their opinions, arrogantly condemn all others ... Such people, in
> > ruth, know nothing. They do not even know what it is to know
> > omething."
> > Hecht, p. 307)
> > It's a marvellous pageant of priests, philosophers and poets,
> > cientists, heretics and oddballs who all dared to "step outside the
> > ox" and question the conventional wisdoms of their environments,
> > requently at the cost of intense internal spiritual suffering and
> > xternal opprobrium and persecution. Not all of them are atheists, she
> > ncludes figures such as Jesus and Augustine as well, but all of them
> > re people who dared to doubt, to question.
> > It strikes me that Charron's view of wise searchers as those who dare
> > to doubt, to consider both points of view, to put off a decision" is
> > ot a bad aphorism for us here on ME.
> > Francis
> > -~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
> > ou received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Minds Eye"" group.
> > o post to this group, send email to minds-eye@googlegroups.com
> > o unsubscribe from this group, send email to minds-eye+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
> > or more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en > > ~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
ou received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Minds Eye"" group.
o post to this group, send email to minds-eye@googlegroups.com
o unsubscribe from this group, send email to minds-eye+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
or more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en ~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
|
