Difference between revisions of "Holotopia: Narrow frame"

From Knowledge Federation
Jump to: navigation, search
m
m
Line 10: Line 10:
  
 
<p>Science was developed as a way to find causal explanations of natural phenomena. Consequently, it has served us well for <em>some</em> purposes (such as developing science and technology) and poorly for others (such as developing culture). </p>
 
<p>Science was developed as a way to find causal explanations of natural phenomena. Consequently, it has served us well for <em>some</em> purposes (such as developing science and technology) and poorly for others (such as developing culture). </p>
<p>But its main disadvantage in the role of 'headlights' is that it constitutes a 'hammer'; it coerces the creative elite to look for the 'nail'—and ignore the needs of people and society.</p>  
+
<p>But its main disadvantage in the role of 'headlights' is that it constitutes a 'hammer'; it coerces the creative elite to look for the 'nail'—and ignore the needs of the people and the society.</p>  
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
  
Line 20: Line 20:
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<blockquote>This is not an argument against science.</blockquote>  
 
<blockquote>This is not an argument against science.</blockquote>  
<p>Science has served us most excellently <em>in the role which it was created for</em>. And there is no reason to believe that it will not continue to do so. </p>  
+
<p>Science has served us most excellently <em>in the role it was created for</em>. There is no reason to believe that it will not continue to do so. </p>  
<p>Our theme here is how we, contemporary humans, go about creating truth (what we collectively believe in) and meaning, about the matters of which our daily life and interests are composed. And also those other matters, which demand our attention, but remain ignored.</p>  
+
<p>Our theme here is how we create truth (what we collectively believe in) and meaning, about the matters of which our daily life and interests are composed. And also those other matters, which demand our attention but remain ignored.</p>  
<blockquote>We have an urgent need—for orientation, and for guidance</blockquote>  
+
<blockquote>We have an urgent need for orientation and guidance.</blockquote>  
<p>In all walks of life—so that we may see things as we need to see them; and direct our efforts productively, and wisely.</p>  
+
<p>In all walks of life—so that we may see things as we need to see them; and direct our efforts productively and wisely.</p>  
<p>Our point of departure is an easy observation—that nobody really thought about, and created, the way we create truth and meaning about the matters that matter. What we have, and use, is a patchwork made out of ideas from the 19th century science, when our trust in tradition was shaken, and our trust in science prevailed. A belief lingers that something is trustworthy, true, legitimate or real, (only) if it is "scientifically proven". </p>  
+
<p>Our point of departure is the fact that nobody really thought about and created the way we create truth and meaning about those matters. What we have, and use, is a patchwork made of fragments from the 19th century science (which were available when our trust in tradition was shaken, and our trust in science prevailed), and popular <em>myths</em>. We tend to take it for granted, for instance, that something is trustworthy, true, legitimate or real, (only) if it is "scientifically proven". </p>  
 
<p>Our point will be that <em>we can do better</em> than that.</p>  
 
<p>Our point will be that <em>we can do better</em> than that.</p>  
<p>And that our task at hand, our pursuit of "cultural revival", <em>demands</em> that we do better than that. </p>  
+
<p>And that our task at hand (em>federating</em> Aurelio Peccei's call to action, to pursue "cultural revival") requires that. </p>  
  
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  

Revision as of 04:46, 3 June 2020

H O L O T O P I A:    F I V E    I N S I G H T S



Science gave us a completely new way to look at the world. It gave us powers that the people in Galilei's time couldn't dream of. What might be the theme of the next revolution of this kind?

Science was developed as a way to find causal explanations of natural phenomena. Consequently, it has served us well for some purposes (such as developing science and technology) and poorly for others (such as developing culture).

But its main disadvantage in the role of 'headlights' is that it constitutes a 'hammer'; it coerces the creative elite to look for the 'nail'—and ignore the needs of the people and the society.


This is not an argument against science.

Science has served us most excellently in the role it was created for. There is no reason to believe that it will not continue to do so.

Our theme here is how we create truth (what we collectively believe in) and meaning, about the matters of which our daily life and interests are composed. And also those other matters, which demand our attention but remain ignored.

We have an urgent need for orientation and guidance.

In all walks of life—so that we may see things as we need to see them; and direct our efforts productively and wisely.

Our point of departure is the fact that nobody really thought about and created the way we create truth and meaning about those matters. What we have, and use, is a patchwork made of fragments from the 19th century science (which were available when our trust in tradition was shaken, and our trust in science prevailed), and popular myths. We tend to take it for granted, for instance, that something is trustworthy, true, legitimate or real, (only) if it is "scientifically proven".

Our point will be that we can do better than that.

And that our task at hand (em>federating</em> Aurelio Peccei's call to action, to pursue "cultural revival") requires that.

To be continued