...but, a lecture on physics is only accurate about how the physical world interacts/works. It isn't, in fact, terribly accurate when it comes to how the human world interacts/works.
I think myths are effective because they bridge the divide between the physical and emotional worlds. They do this by "showing" epic physical consequences of emotional truths, often at the cost of scientic accuracy.
Using Scientific truth in the same way as mythic truth is incredibly dangerous, precisely because science values accuracy above emotional or ethical consequences.
But the question was "accurate" -- not "true". To me, they're different things. The adjective which they used, to me, is one which refers to scientific truth, and not emotional or mythical truth. I don't, in any way, deny the importance or relavance of mythology and story -- but I don't think that the word "accurate" is the word that is right for what they are. "True", "numinous", "illuminating" -- those are all good words for that purpose. "Accurate," not so much.
...but not everyone is as precise as you are about langauge, (and, maybe, some people are more precise.)
Part of the problem is that there is no word for "emotional accuracy" in the English langauge. So those who want to talk about it have to make do with close but imperfect synonyms. "True"... "numinous"... "illuminating"... each of these is a good attempt, but none seems, to me, to be precise. Nor is this a comprehensive list of possiblities.
One of the possible imperfect synonyms - at least for the concept I'm thinking of - is "accurate." So someone could be thinking, "What holy book do you feel is most [emotionally true]?" and saying, "What holy book do you feel is most accurate?" And if I replied, "The Feynman Lectures on Physics," well, I wouldn't exactly be lying, but it would create a misrepresentation / miscommunication.
Actually, there's an argument that, in the context of religion, the word "accurate" either doesn't apply, or, if it is used, means "true". After all, in the context of science, "true" means "accurate." I, myself, don't agree, but I think it's a strong enough argument that I wouldn't want to blame someone for using it that way, either as a speaker or a listener. Then too, there are some functions of the word "accurate" (see below) that don't follow from any other imperfect synonym.
What I'm trying to say is this... In the context of religion, "accurate" can be used for [emotional truth]. That isn't it's primary / strongest / best meaning, but, since there is no word for the concept I'm talking about, and "accurate" might be the closest match in this context, it's legitimate to use "accurate" for [true]. Which means that the miscommunication, above, isn't the fault of the person thinking, "What holy book do you feel is most [emotionally true]?" and saying, "What holy book do you feel is the most accurate?" After all, zie is doing the best zie can with the langauge.
On the other hand, I don't like to misrepresent myself. I prefer to be more precise, so I often find it's necessary not only to specify what I mean, but what I don't mean. For example, instead of just answering, "The Feynman Lectures on Physics," I might say, "Well, the Feynman Lectures on Physics give the best description of the physical world, but they aren't the best basis for emotional truth."
Well, maybe... maybe not... I don't actually know enough about the Feynman Lectures on Physics to cite them as a good religious text (though I might cite something similar, like the classical physics textbook by Halliday and Resnick.) So the quote above isn't a precise expression of my religious beliefs. And what I've said in the last five paragraphs might itself constitute a religious belief (it is certainly a belief about religion). If you don't share that belief then the quote above isn't a precise expression of your beliefs either. But simply stating "The Feynman Lectures" is - and that's what you actually said, so there you go...
Also, this is a public discussion. The use of imperfect synonyms for concepts not precisely articulated in English is really the pervue of private communication, which, I believe, has proceedures and standards for dealing with them. By the standards of public discourse, "accurate" means what you said it means, and can't be extended to mean something it doesn't (which is what imperfect synonyms do). If we were to treat words in any other way public discussions with many participants would split into many small groups, each with it's own private jargon. In the worst case, we would end up speaking gibberish to each other. So, in a public discussion you are just right. Period.
This is why I don't like public discussions. I find myself in a lot of situations where I need imperfect synonyms. In private I can handle this. But in public I find that I'm silenced - and sometimes unable to defend myself - because I'm not normal, and so there are no words for what I want to say. (Of course I realize that some people - and I think this includes you and Lis - apply public standards even in private conversation. This is one reason that we'd have to figure out a better way to communicate if we wanted a more substantial relationship).
I've said that the word "accurate" has certain functions that no other imperfect synonym duplicates. These are:
1) Describing results of a precise, objective process that can be duplicated and verified, for example measuring.
2) Confers legitimacy on what it decribes, whether it's a fact or a body of work.
When I'm talking about [emotional truth] I'm talking about something that's the end result of an objective process. It's an important part of the meaning I'm trying to convey. And I'm also talking about something that confers legitimacy on the results, in this case ethical guidelines. I don't know if this is part of the meaning you want to convey when you use words like "numinous" and "illuminating". For me... well... "accurate" may actually come closer to what I mean.
Maybe this could also be considered a religious belief... There exist [logical], objective processes that produce [accuracy/truth] in the emotional mode as well as the physical mode. Or at least that such things are possible, and ought to be developed / articulated / implemented / invented / discovered. I believe this kind of [accuracy/truth] is the most important trait a religious text can have.
Unfortunately, at the monent, I don't know any religious texts that have this attribute... the closest... well... the closest would be something like the Feynman Lectures on Physics. At least they are physically accurate.
(Sigh... yes the kind of [emotional accuracy] I'm talking about, and the resulting texts might be really cool... yes, I'd like to develope the idea... unfortunately, I have other problems... fortunately, they sometimes turn up interesting ideas along these lines.)
But there's a problem... Both kinds of accuracy confer legitimacy on the results. For religious texts, that includes, commandments, morals, etc. Of course scientific texts don't explicitly include these... but that doesn't stop humans from deriving them. I mean look at what happened to Darwin's Theory. No moral guidelines here. But it managed to be an inspiration, not only to eugenics & fascism, but to Lenin (and hence Russian Communism) and a nasty take on Capitalism proposed by someone called, I think, Matheson. His specific theory was debunked, yet the ideas remains in our culture, as memes like "profit is King" or the idea that corporations have no (moral?) obligation except to the bottom line. Michael Moore is still fighting this attitude today.
Long ago, when society "made up" the nature of physical reality, the physical reality they "created" supported the moral guidelines they needed. So we were protected from the dangerous aspects of deriving morals from physical reality. Then Galileo agrued with the Pope about what was more important - accuracy in our view of the physical world, or "purity" in the foundation of our morals. Eventually almost every culture in the world decided to take Galileo's position. And that left society open, to, well, those who Darwin [inspired].
Who knows where the science of the future will take us. For good or ill.
So, I think it's important to point out that it's not always a good idea to use scientific facts/ theories as the inspiration for moral ideals. Because the standards of legitimacy are different in the emotional mode. The standards of [accuracy], even, perhaps, of [measurement], are different.
This is a meme...
...that I think should be repeated.
I don't think you're in danger of making this kind of mistake. But what you did - answering questions about religious accuracy with scientific texts - is also a meme. That meme supports the idea of using science as a [source point] for moral ideals. And phantom_wolfboy seemed to pick up on if. And I don't know him. Let alone those he would might pass the meme to. So, I was hoping to attach my meme to the idea. Something like...
The Feynman lectures are an accurate religious text, but not a good basis for moral inspiration.
And part of the reason I wanted to do that is because I liked your meme. It's darn close to own my answer.
I'm pretty sure I failed. But I was afraid I might have offended you in the process. Which I didn't mean to do. So, I thought I ought to explain myself.
Generally speaking and in this case, it's one of those things that makes the rounds of the blogosphere. Ian saw this quiz on somebody else's blog; now he's blogged it; somebody else may see it here and they'll choose to blog it and so on.
Thanks so much. I liked this one the best:The concept of memes is itself a meme. Even the idea that the concepts of memes is itself a meme has become a widely spread meme. However, the idea that the idea that the concepts of memes is itself a meme, is not yet particularly common as a meme.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2004-10-26 05:38 pm (UTC)Feynman Lectures
Date: 2004-11-01 10:41 am (UTC)...but, a lecture on physics is only accurate about how the physical world interacts/works. It isn't, in fact, terribly accurate when it comes to how the human world interacts/works.
I think myths are effective because they bridge the divide between the physical and emotional worlds. They do this by "showing" epic physical consequences of emotional truths, often at the cost of scientic accuracy.
Using Scientific truth in the same way as mythic truth is incredibly dangerous, precisely because science values accuracy above emotional or ethical consequences.
Kiralee
Re: Feynman Lectures
Date: 2004-11-01 08:26 pm (UTC)Re: Feynman Lectures
Date: 2004-11-05 09:44 am (UTC)...but not everyone is as precise as you are about langauge, (and, maybe, some people are more precise.)
Part of the problem is that there is no word for "emotional accuracy" in the English langauge. So those who want to talk about it have to make do with close but imperfect synonyms. "True"... "numinous"... "illuminating"... each of these is a good attempt, but none seems, to me, to be precise. Nor is this a comprehensive list of possiblities.
One of the possible imperfect synonyms - at least for the concept I'm thinking of - is "accurate." So someone could be thinking, "What holy book do you feel is most [emotionally true]?" and saying, "What holy book do you feel is most accurate?" And if I replied, "The Feynman Lectures on Physics," well, I wouldn't exactly be lying, but it would create a misrepresentation / miscommunication.
Actually, there's an argument that, in the context of religion, the word "accurate" either doesn't apply, or, if it is used, means "true". After all, in the context of science, "true" means "accurate." I, myself, don't agree, but I think it's a strong enough argument that I wouldn't want to blame someone for using it that way, either as a speaker or a listener. Then too, there are some functions of the word "accurate" (see below) that don't follow from any other imperfect synonym.
What I'm trying to say is this... In the context of religion, "accurate" can be used for [emotional truth]. That isn't it's primary / strongest / best meaning, but, since there is no word for the concept I'm talking about, and "accurate" might be the closest match in this context, it's legitimate to use "accurate" for [true]. Which means that the miscommunication, above, isn't the fault of the person thinking, "What holy book do you feel is most [emotionally true]?" and saying, "What holy book do you feel is the most accurate?" After all, zie is doing the best zie can with the langauge.
On the other hand, I don't like to misrepresent myself. I prefer to be more precise, so I often find it's necessary not only to specify what I mean, but what I don't mean. For example, instead of just answering, "The Feynman Lectures on Physics," I might say, "Well, the Feynman Lectures on Physics give the best description of the physical world, but they aren't the best basis for emotional truth."
Well, maybe... maybe not... I don't actually know enough about the Feynman Lectures on Physics to cite them as a good religious text (though I might cite something similar, like the classical physics textbook by Halliday and Resnick.) So the quote above isn't a precise expression of my religious beliefs. And what I've said in the last five paragraphs might itself constitute a religious belief (it is certainly a belief about religion). If you don't share that belief then the quote above isn't a precise expression of your beliefs either. But simply stating "The Feynman Lectures" is - and that's what you actually said, so there you go...
Also, this is a public discussion. The use of imperfect synonyms for concepts not precisely articulated in English is really the pervue of private communication, which, I believe, has proceedures and standards for dealing with them. By the standards of public discourse, "accurate" means what you said it means, and can't be extended to mean something it doesn't (which is what imperfect synonyms do). If we were to treat words in any other way public discussions with many participants would split into many small groups, each with it's own private jargon. In the worst case, we would end up speaking gibberish to each other. So, in a public discussion you are just right. Period.
This is why I don't like public discussions. I find myself in a lot of situations where I need imperfect synonyms. In private I can handle this. But in public I find that I'm silenced - and sometimes unable to defend myself - because I'm not normal, and so there are no words for what I want to say. (Of course I realize that some people - and I think this includes you and Lis - apply public standards even in private conversation. This is one reason that we'd have to figure out a better way to communicate if we wanted a more substantial relationship).
Kiralee
[end part 1]
Re: Feynman Lectures
Date: 2004-11-05 10:02 am (UTC)I've said that the word "accurate" has certain functions that no other imperfect synonym duplicates. These are:
1) Describing results of a precise, objective process that can be duplicated and verified, for example measuring.
2) Confers legitimacy on what it decribes, whether it's a fact or a body of work.
When I'm talking about [emotional truth] I'm talking about something that's the end result of an objective process. It's an important part of the meaning I'm trying to convey. And I'm also talking about something that confers legitimacy on the results, in this case ethical guidelines. I don't know if this is part of the meaning you want to convey when you use words like "numinous" and "illuminating". For me... well... "accurate" may actually come closer to what I mean.
Maybe this could also be considered a religious belief... There exist [logical], objective processes that produce [accuracy/truth] in the emotional mode as well as the physical mode. Or at least that such things are possible, and ought to be developed / articulated / implemented / invented / discovered. I believe this kind of [accuracy/truth] is the most important trait a religious text can have.
Unfortunately, at the monent, I don't know any religious texts that have this attribute... the closest... well... the closest would be something like the Feynman Lectures on Physics. At least they are physically accurate.
(Sigh... yes the kind of [emotional accuracy] I'm talking about, and the resulting texts might be really cool... yes, I'd like to develope the idea... unfortunately, I have other problems... fortunately, they sometimes turn up interesting ideas along these lines.)
But there's a problem... Both kinds of accuracy confer legitimacy on the results. For religious texts, that includes, commandments, morals, etc. Of course scientific texts don't explicitly include these... but that doesn't stop humans from deriving them. I mean look at what happened to Darwin's Theory. No moral guidelines here. But it managed to be an inspiration, not only to eugenics & fascism, but to Lenin (and hence Russian Communism) and a nasty take on Capitalism proposed by someone called, I think, Matheson. His specific theory was debunked, yet the ideas remains in our culture, as memes like "profit is King" or the idea that corporations have no (moral?) obligation except to the bottom line. Michael Moore is still fighting this attitude today.
Long ago, when society "made up" the nature of physical reality, the physical reality they "created" supported the moral guidelines they needed. So we were protected from the dangerous aspects of deriving morals from physical reality. Then Galileo agrued with the Pope about what was more important - accuracy in our view of the physical world, or "purity" in the foundation of our morals. Eventually almost every culture in the world decided to take Galileo's position. And that left society open, to, well, those who Darwin [inspired].
Who knows where the science of the future will take us. For good or ill.
So, I think it's important to point out that it's not always a good idea to use scientific facts/ theories as the inspiration for moral ideals. Because the standards of legitimacy are different in the emotional mode. The standards of [accuracy], even, perhaps, of [measurement], are different.
This is a meme...
...that I think should be repeated.
I don't think you're in danger of making this kind of mistake. But what you did - answering questions about religious accuracy with scientific texts - is also a meme. That meme supports the idea of using science as a [source point] for moral ideals. And phantom_wolfboy seemed to pick up on if. And I don't know him. Let alone those he would might pass the meme to. So, I was hoping to attach my meme to the idea. Something like...
The Feynman lectures are an accurate religious text, but not a good basis for moral inspiration.
And part of the reason I wanted to do that is because I liked your meme. It's darn close to own my answer.
I'm pretty sure I failed. But I was afraid I might have offended you in the process. Which I didn't mean to do. So, I thought I ought to explain myself.
Kiralee
meme/
Date: 2004-10-27 10:28 am (UTC)()
Re: meme/
Date: 2004-10-27 04:10 pm (UTC)Generally speaking and in this case, it's one of those things that makes the rounds of the blogosphere. Ian saw this quiz on somebody else's blog; now he's blogged it; somebody else may see it here and they'll choose to blog it and so on.
Re: meme/
Date: 2004-10-28 04:50 pm (UTC)