[FoRK] Re: Please Help

[Lion Kimbro]

On Dec 4, 2007 2:19 PM, Jef Allbright <jef at jefallbright.net> wrote:
> On 12/4/07, Lion Kimbro <lionkimbro at gmail.com> wrote:
> >   One of those places was Charles Darwin's **house.**
> >   More specifically, the path he used to walk on, around the garden,
> >   when he was thinking.
>
> Lion, here again you refer to a scientific icon or artifact as if you
> believe it demonstrates appreciation of science.  Do you see the non
> sequitur?

  I see the non-sequiter, but we're not talking about
  mathematics here;  We're talking about human minds.

  When people are training to be salesmen, they are often
  encouraged to put pictures of what they want on the walls.
  (Usually fancy cars, houses, babes, whatever.)

  I suppose you could run in and say, "STOP!  STOP!
  You're being fooled!  Those are just *pictures!*  They're
  not real!")

  When I was 11, my dad and I took a road trip to Arizona.
  We stopped at the VLA.

  Would you run out, and say, "STOP! STOP!  They're
  doing *real science* in there, in their minds;  Don't be
  fooled by the giant dishes!"

  Of course not.  You'd encourage people to "learn about
  science."

  What I am pointing to is subjective reality.

  Visiting Charles Darwin's house is an icon of
  respecting and loving science.  People who visit
  Charles Darwin's house and retrace his footsteps
  are seeding their mind, their empathy, their readiness,
  to the appreciation of the real works.

  This is ritual, this is subjective reality, and --
  ... it just works.


> Further, you conflate a feeling of sacredness with perceiving
> something (ontologically) sacred.
>
> Do you not see the difference, or do you simply disregard it?

  I see the difference *AND* I regard it.

  I think I regard it more than you do!

  If you really regarded it, then I would think that you
  would understand it as a tool, rather than trying to get
  away from it.