This comes out of a discussion with @georockstar09, and thanks for the thought-fodder!

Our society very clearly recognizes the value of those who do the leg-work to collect the raw data for studies. But as I look around I see a noticeable under-representation of philosophers using the studies and adding the human touch — connecting the cold dead facts and workable ideas and theories regarding the human condition.

I know there are still some out there. But I think our society puts more importance on gleaners of knowledge . . . than on the gleaners of wisdom.




26 Comments

Leave a response

You must be to post a response.

  1. five2one 4 months ago

    I often call my work here (to coworkers, etc, outsiders), as “philosophy”, and that is, to a degree, what it is. Why? Because it is so very hard to believe this – THIS – everything… is a dream in the mind of God. And we know, this is by design.

    So, it is critical to be able to apply the razor double edge of the mind against this “reality”, so as to believe. Not trust. Believe. Believe that those eyes can be made whole. Believe that a midget can be a giant.

    “Knowledge” is worthless. Knowledge of God is inestimable.

    Demons and human mortals drive on empty words, and they call it “knowledge”. It is gibberish. Gibberish of sufficient strength can move the iron legs of giants. But, can it repair what breaks? Can it create? Can it sustain? Can it reverse time? Can it make the blind see.

    Are we bound and blinded by this vast delusion God helped concoct?

    For what purpose to make a world with no faith, a seamless clock with no maker… where faith alone is the rocket fuel for escape.

    Are these dead words to dead ears. Or is there the smallest spark possible – all which is required – to reverse what we used to think. To remember, the tales of old. To know, in our very bones… those were no tales. No, oh no, no they were not.

    They are true stories.

    The Bible.

    And everyone seems to believe — but where, how? Show me. Show me the superheroes fighting for justice against the monsters of injustice.

    They are not found.

    We alone can walk through the watery path of the grave, and come out the other side.

    The baptism of the miraculous, leaving the old world of rock and sand and pharaohs – vast Egypt, their queen – behind.

    Reply

    You must be to vote.

    • Author
      griz 4 months ago

      @five2one
      After faith, trust, and belief . . . come knowledge. The Bible talks too about this “next step” — the knowledge of God. (Which came from the nefarious “tree” — enabling us to be knowledgeable in BOTH good AND evil. Carnally, we seem to prefer the knowledge of evil, and even concoct “entertainment events” (including the news) to keep us apprised of all conceivable evil!

      The knowledge of anyone works itself out through fellowship (or relationship). It starts with a leap of faith. Trust builds. Then we start to believe in that person. But “knowing them” is a significant step further.

      It is also why forces are afoot to isolate us, drive us apart, instill distrust, make “faith” in someone too expensive a “luxury” to afford.

      As with any relationship, faith alone is the spark that lights the rocket fuel that gets it started. Trust is like the gantry that holds the rocket upright until it can achieve stable flight of it’s own. But they are just means to an end — the Knowledge of That-Which-Transcends our own biases and egos and “glorious little-ness” and grand-ness within our own putrefying selves.

      Whether escaping the Earth’s gravitational pull — or escaping the even more powerful pull of our egocentricity — unbelievable amounts of power and energy are needed.

      Reply

      You must be to vote.

      • five2one 4 months ago

        @griz There are three, but will just be one. Faith, hope, love. In the end, faith will be succumbed by knowledge, likewise hope. There is no faith nor hope, when our immortality is globally secured. And knowledge of God fills the earth as the waters cover the sea.

        But, love is what we are meant to be, and will be. But, not yet. A very far way off.

        Immortality has come for the few, and the millennium has started. But, day by day. The inching ahead of life has yet to see.

        … looking at rest of post…

        Most knowledge, of course, is false. It is lies designed to look pretty. Darkness designed to appear as light. True knowledge is the only real knowledge… and as we all know is knowledge of our Father, God.

        Satan can not see God, nor will the impure of heart ever see God.

        The “Not” has been created, and is shed, as a carver sheds pieces of stone to create the creation.

        Reply

        You must be to vote.

      • Author
        griz 4 months ago

        @five2one
        Brilliant! True knowledge of someone or something negates the need for faith and hope. You don’t have faith or hope someone will be a good father or a good friend. You have the knowledge that they are.

        Even our best, most brilliant knowledge of God is something seen dimly, as a pale reflection off our buffoonish Human understanding. We know only in part; but some day soon will know fully. Even with the Holy Spirit firing on all cylinders, our own foolish pride and bias can gum the engine all up in a heartbeat.

        I still think there’s traction with the idea of “the knowledge of good and evil”. There is the kind of knowledge of thing dead and dying (ie, the physical realm) that really cannot endure and we use mainly to just puff ourselves up. It is gained and lost, used wisely then mishandled . . . but all comes to an end at the very next iteration of God’s Kingdom.

        I’ll have to take some time to unpack your last statement, because I think there’s importance there.

        Reply

        You must be to vote.

      • five2one 4 months ago

        @griz There are many mysteries yet to be solved or revealed. And everyone has discovered God is cryptic and hidden. Daedulus Zeus. The story goes, before John received Revelation on the isle of Patmos… there was Daedulus, the maker of the Maze, and Icarus his son…

        It is impossible on earth for humans to truly realize, this world is in God’s mind. It is not real. The false evidence of the observed earth, heavens, quantum, biological… all distractions. Evolution, a distraction.

        All of that forms the basis of the delusion. The Delusion.

        Moses took a similar people through the impossibly parted sea and cloud, showing them the reality Pharaoh’s world was *not* reality.

        Pain and bad circumstances made their old reality so real.

        Even the apostles saw the bread and fish created, and right afterwards worried about their next meal.

        Miracles are as windows into Heaven. Even when shown, afterwards… it is forgotten.

        But, this was all before The Spirit and The Kingdom of Heaven it brought… making even the least saint greater than John the Baptist…

        And where are we now, 2000 years later? Worried about the world, relying on science, having forgotten everything of old. Lost as slaves under Pharoah.

        Where is our food coming from? How will our medical knowledge help us? Are we following the most recent science? Do angels even exist? Where is God, where is Jesus.

        Yet, spirituality cries out from our movies and shows and music and youtube… even our video games… there is something to America that is somehow good and not bad.

        All just faint whispers in an oceanic river of claims.

        In a world where there is no truth, because everyone believes what they want to believe based on their preferences.

        Reply

        You must be to vote.

      • Author
        griz 4 months ago

        @five2one
        Personally, I don’t fancy God a wastrel or frivolous dreamer. Everything has purpose; order; design. All things physical just a distraction and wasted effort? I have a hard time getting there. Even an idle thought in God’s mind (if such a thought exists), contains volumes of wisdom unimaginable.

        I’m reminded that even Jesus made use of analogy to things and processes physical, to shed light on the Spiritual. So I cannot make a presumption (or judgement upon them) as being of no (or negative) use.

        Did God err in creating our eyes with which we see the cosmos around us, and placed in us the curiosity and intelligence to ponder these things? Personally I think these analogies to things physical serve at least as important a role as spirit-speak that few can grasp.

        Concern for or curiosity about what is here at this moment is not the same thing as reliance upon them to somehow bring us joy and peace; purpose and salvation.

        Actually, “everyone believes what they want to believe based on their preferences” is a pretty fair interpretation of the spiritual infection of postmodernism.

        Reply

        You must be to vote.

      • five2one 4 months ago

        @griz You are believing what you want to believe… truth is not to be rationalized away because one does not want to believe it.

        Truth is to be grasped and to try and comprehend.

        Humans wanted freedom, so they sought it because of their own preferences. So the tower was destroyed and the peoples spread across the land.

        Humans wanted what they thought was better, so God sent them this great delusion… starting small, as their aim was small and growing out. From telescopes to microscopes, even to landing on the moon. And mars.

        If you ever beheld a great truth, you would be in shock, then attempt to understand it. If you do not want to believe it, you find some way to dismiss it.

        People swear by the heavens and earth when they do these things, instead of merely saying, “this may be right, I can not comprehend it”. They say, God says. God does. God would not do. Heaven says, Heaven does.

        I do not make up what I say in this context, but say, though I know man can not comprehend — he is incapable of even thinking it out.

        In your case, I am just using you to make statements before Heaven, and Satan. And before and to all of creation. These things I say are impossible to believe.

        They are the many false miracles of the man of sin, going back to his father, long before he came. The great mysterious power of the antichrist.

        It says heaven does not exist and will not come, as it is not among and within, but it is physical and not spiritual. As the earth of Satan, the Destroyer is.

        Pharaoh of old was a type of Satan, even while Satan killed the first born and observed those great workings of God.

        Science provides but also lies and limits. It says there is no spiritual, no supernatural, only the natural.

        Nice arguments like magic is just as yet unknown technology does not allow for practicality – no science believes it. Only the natural.

        So death continues and never resurrection of the dead. Lest it be so big and so conclusive science in quotes, can not deny.

        Reply

        You must be to vote.

      • Author
        griz 4 months ago

        @five2one
        Ego is a pernicious challenge we all must face.

        But in the end we service Truth and not the other way around. (Which is why the flesh must die before the Spirit can come. Literally, figuratively, mythologically, personally).

        Actually, people wanted “knowledge”. That is what your intact “eve-parts” want. And through this we got both the knowledge of good (God) AND evil. And this created within us a dichotomy from which all suffering ultimately comes.

        Knowledge is not satan. It’s how we choose to use it, and what role we want to give it in our “salvation” . . . that satan can come and inhabit.

        Reply

        You must be to vote.

      • five2one 4 months ago

        @griz You are, again, not taking me literally, as you should.

        I always speak in metaphor, and some are real. Real stuff I do is metaphoric for deeper matters.

        But, this is like in the tv show Lucifer, where he and his angel brother talk openly to his psychiatrist about their circumstances. She repeats, again, this is some kind of code, but what is the “real” problem.

        Finally, in unison, exasperated, both say, “It is *not* a code”.

        She never really believes though, until Lucifer shows his supernatural face.

        That is the moment of truth. Where she then had to grapple with truth she did not want to believe. It changed her entire world view.

        You need that kind of moment. Badly.

        I am literally a celestial being incarnate.

        You mistake me for being a mere man, such as your self.

        I understand this is difficult for you to believe, but sooner or later, you will understand.

        So, I am ahead of you, faster. And due to my nature far more powerful and brilliant.

        But, you think I am your equal.

        All Heaven and Hell knows me, and many watch these exchanges.

        In fact, I use this forum to make pronouncements and speak to them.

        You are a lit candlestick currently in a very glorified place, because you get to talk to me. But, you can be taken away and put in a faraway place. An obscure place. Is not the earth littered with hills and mountains? Now, you are on the holy mountain. Tomorrow, you may be in Timbuktu.

        Reply

        You must be to vote.

      • five2one 4 months ago

        @griz Second response to this.

        I am not going to continue to reply to you on anything useful. I just replied I am actually a celestial being incarnate, and it is no code. I show every evidence of this. Worse, previously, I was open with an upper level secret, that I had worked for CIA and NSA.

        I quite simply proved this was very likely after showing clear enmity with Weenis who thought he caught me, proving me otherwise. I was finally willing to link to my resume, which, for a man like himself, in computer security… said, “Yes, he was, unless you are a complete idiot”. I heard nothing back, nor should I.

        I did this in a manner which showed no flaw: nobody could sell or use this information, due to the nature of the site and the flair people have for being actors or writers — a site founded by an actor and popular with actors and writers. But, at the same time, my resume is obviously valid. I spoke in China during the heat of the cyber cold war, of which trivially discovered, the company I represented when doing so invented and found the most virulent of Chinese government attacks (“Code Red” virus, which was from China and hacked the white house).

        I set up code review at Verizon, who handles the wiring for all of Virginia and Maryland, including the District of Colombia. Which is all code mandated by the DoD for governmental (NSA) code review inspection.

        The agents I ran are all fine now, I talk to them personally. The details I gave were sufficient. I really did have a fmr CI AF manager as a co-worker, and that is trivially found.

        And so on. Now, I doubt anyone would doubt me here. But, is this currency to sell or use? No, it is not.

        All of that is meaningless, nobody can touch them or me. What is not meaningless, is I am really an immortal, celestial being.

        Why would I lie about that? How could I be confused?

        I am literally the invasive species here.

        Why would I lie about this? To win a girlfriend? To impress some nobodies? How can someone be so dense as to not know? Or to compare their light to my own? To often see error in me, which is not there?

        I have been in your shoes, and met angels. I knew they were angels, and though the evidence seemed contradictory, I respected them when they identified as such. I have seen an angel transfigure even. When they later said I made them transfigure, I believed them.

        Nobody or not, instead of trying to match wits with me – where you invariably fail and have only presented ideas I have considered, long before – you should be going, “Holy Hell, what have I stumbled onto”.

        So, I judge you, and my judgment is correct. Your heart is hard and you think you are awake, but you are asleep.

        I stand before God. The God.

        Like Gabriel, Michael, and Moses and John the Baptist.

        Who… are you? A truck driver with some apologies for the philosophies of the hard hearted world.

        I will not continue to walk with you, unless you repent.

        You should expect terrible things and consistent bad things to happen to you, because of your unfortunate situation.

        Certainly, I kept a disguise before, but now it is obvious that was intentional and not who I am, so you have no excuse.

        From here on out, I will treat you with the respect you deserve — as a mortal man who is deeply conceited and completely lost.

        One who strikes my face, an innocent celestial who has only done him good.

        Because you merely wish to keep your prized ego intact.

        Worse, you claim you want to do good in the world, yet reject to seek God? When I have clearly delineated the well known steps to do so??

        Fast, stay up nights, mortify your flesh — and hide these matters from fellow mortals. Throw out all your filthy worldly teachings and seek Heaven, seek God.

        And, literally, for Heaven’s sake, stop wickedly judging as inferior beings who are far older and more wise then your self.

        Reply

        You must be to vote.

      • Author
        griz 4 months ago

        @five2one
        I find that conversations take an interesting twist when we become fixated on our “credentials” — or our “authority” to do things that others might be calling us on.

        I have another dear friend who thinks it is their place to pronounce “judgements from God” and “require” repentance of others. It’s not going well for them. Their attempt to “hover” above everyone else is destroying them. (I think you said something in another thread about “the spirit of the anti-Christ”? It starts with the delusion that one’s “job” is to rule over others and quash or find fault with anyone who doesn’t “submit”.)

        One of the best ways to avoid growth . . . remains to insist that we are beyond the need to. Maybe this is the very scary door behind which lurk the answers you most need to take a quantum leap ahead?

        Reply

        You must be to vote.

  2. luftballooneyegouge 4 months ago

    What’s the point in keeping score with this or things like this?

    Why does there need to be a philosopher vs info-pro, cage-match for the World Champion Societal Importance Belt.

    I’m pretty sure there’s more current “philosophers” today getting paid to speak this month, than all the census takers in human history.

    Where do you see examples of how, “Our society very clearly recognizes the value of those who do the leg-work to collect the raw data for studies”?

    Reply

    You must be to vote.

    • Author
      griz 4 months ago

      @luftballooneyegouge
      The point my friend, is to keep us from sliding back down the evolutionary scale unto becoming chimps who’s notion of rational discourse is to see who can fling the juiciest turd-pie at the other. Consider all the forums — personal, social, religious, the news, entertainment for starters . . . who don’t already subscribe to this kind of chimp-intelligence?

      Most people are so busy and blinded by the abundant obligation and worries of everyday life to sit back and ponder the larger picture.

      Consider for example the model you suggest of philosophers “getting paid to speak this month”. Corruption enters the picture in the form of exactly who is paying them. They have to do it for “reasons beyond money”.

      Where I see examples of this is almost weekly on “news events” where speakers who are guaranteed not to tickle the intelligence of the audience (speakers of existing doctrine), are invited on to talk about “”research”” and “”studies”” (rarely citing sources or if they do, often citing only the parts of it that support existing bias or are “sensational” enough to garner hits and ratings).

      When such news/entertainment events accidentally invite someone who thinks outside the box of “the expected and approved”, they are attacked or shut down.
      Hell, forces are actively at work in our institutions of higher learning to actively block and discredit anyone who might dare cause icky “growing pains” in our population’s intelligence or its ability to think and examine things critically for more than just corroboration of existing bias. (post-modernism)

      Reply

      You must be to vote.

      • luftballooneyegouge 4 months ago

        @griz
        You completely dodge the question: How does keeping score have any effect on your concerns?

        You’ve changed data collector to public speaker, so now we’re not even talking about the same thing.

        As for philosophers and money, they’ve always been joined at the hip as any other human in monetary driven societies. This is not a modern phenomenon.

        Reply

        You must be to vote.

      • Author
        griz 4 months ago

        @luftballooneyegouge
        Perhaps the same effect as “keeping score” of the barometer on the wall.
        If the needle points too far one way, we’re due for a storm.

        Public speakers — particularly the media — venerate the studiers and the data-gatherers over those who then bring these things into realm of human experience and application.

        Many philosophers of ancient times had “sponsors” — and were far freer to say things even if they caused vexation.
        We’ve developed (regressed?) into a society that has a VERY low tolerance for anything perceived to be “heresy against accepted [pop] doctrine”.

        Post-modernism is a fine example of this, where objective truths are watered down to fit into personally-generated subjective “realities”.
        The accumulation of “data” and knowledge seems to encourage this on-going fragmentation of modern culture.

        The quest for wisdom seems to be what keeps this in check.

        The barometer would seem to be indicating we’re in for a storm.

        Reply

        You must be to vote.

      • luftballooneyegouge 4 months ago

        @griz made up, “Public speakers — particularly the media — venerate the studiers and the data-gatherers over those who then bring these things into realm of human experience and application.”

        with

        “(speakers of existing doctrine), are invited on to talk about “”research”” and “”studies”” (rarely citing sources or if they do, often citing only the parts of it that support existing bias”

        Self-contradiction……..

        You’re doing the human tradition of discovering a problem where there isn’t one.
        Philosophers still have sponsors.
        There is no anti-philosopher conspiracy.
        Nobody holds talking-heads in higher regard than philosophers.

        Niall Ferguson, with his degree in philosophy, has all sorts of opportunities laid before his feet, & nobody goes away thinking he’s to be less valued than a politician aka, a talking-head using data points to make a claim.

        This is all in your head.

        Reply

        You must be to vote.

      • Author
        griz 4 months ago

        @luftballooneyegouge
        “made up, “Public speakers — particularly the media — venerate the studiers and the data-gatherers over those who then bring these things into realm of human experience and application.”

        with

        “(speakers of existing doctrine), are invited on to talk about “”research”” and “”studies”” (rarely citing sources or if they do, often citing only the parts of it that support existing bias”

        Self-contradiction……..”

        You’ll have to humor me in unpacking your point a bit more.

        I’m thinking how rare it is that the evening news has a good philosopher on to break down an event or the unpack the data into a theory that can be applied to understanding the human condition that is (or should be) newsworthy to all . . . humans.
        It’s far easier and better for ratings to just say, “New study shows shows that drinking more than 10 beers in an hour can turn you into a Kung Fu Master!”.

        Now for homework, count the number of times this week a given newscast utters the phrase “A new study says/suggests. . . “.
        Then contrast it to how many philosophical points a week are addressed by the same newscast. (They don’t even have to be good or well-articulated philosophical points!)

        Reply

        You must be to vote.

      • luftballooneyegouge 4 months ago

        @griz
        You contradict yourself: “venerate the studiers…data-gatherers” vs “rarely citing sources”

        It’s not the TV news’s’s’s’s job to do anything but give current events, which includes recent studies & analyzed data. You’re bitching about something like going to the grocery store and them just having groceries and nobody there to prepare your groceries into meals. What you’re looking for are restaurants & lectures.

        Once again, this problem,… is in your head.

        Homework: Stop Clinging to Erroneous Musings that lead to nonsense statements like: “Many philosophers of ancient times had “sponsors” — and were far freer to say things even if they caused vexation”, when the freakin so-called father of Western Philosophy was sentenced to death for the things he said.

        This problem,… is in your head.

        Reply

        You must be to vote.

      • Author
        griz 4 months ago

        @luftballooneyegouge
        OK, I think I understand your point.
        Most people get their science from the media. Few can sift through the raw data or scientific papers for themselves to arrive at coherent conclusion. So the reporters (or youtube gurus) will just say things like “A new study says/suggest/proves ______” . Often no citation, or if there is and you go back to read the study for yourself you find they’ve extracted just a part of it they think they can use for power acquisition (ratings are a form of power).

        There are places and people who can “prepare” this raw data into either a cooked meal or baby-mush (depending upon one’s ability to chew for themselves).

        A question to you. Are free speech and intellectual dialogue still things you value? Part of this is saying, “Yes, share your musings and let’s see if they are erroneous, not fully developed, or just something that has not been commonly unpacked before!”. Free speech means one has to risk being wrong, risk being offensive, risk being in contention for the sake of getting to a usable truth that will benefit person, society, and species.

        I think I know who you mean by “the freakin so-called father of Western Philosophy”, but let’s be certain. :wink:

        Reply

        You must be to vote.

  3. spitfire3dc 4 months ago

    I kinda wonder if either is important.

    I get a kick out of all the studies and how invariably they contradict themselves. One study says coffee is good for you. Another says its bad for you. Depends on who paid for the study. I think many of us learned a long time ago that start with the introduction, “Studies show…” and we put up deflector shields to allow the results to bounce off our foreheads.

    While I like listening to philosophers’, i find the influence is about the same as any fairy tale. They’re opinions and although I do enjoy trying them on for size; sometimes they influence me and sometimes they don’t.

    I’m coming to a place where less is more. Life has become too complicated and it doesn’t need to be.

    Reply

    You must be to vote.

    • Author
      griz 4 months ago

      @Spitfire3dC
      The problem is that few people stop to actually think or critically examine or exercise logic and intelligence on the input we’re receiving.

      We’re just “input sponges” — but sponges that are relying upon entertainment outlets (ie, the news, sitcoms, the internet, and increasingly shallow and biased education system) who take advantage of our intellectual invalidity to feed us just the parts of “a new study” that are either a) sensational or b) confirm an existing bias. (Both a function of nothing more than ratings, hits or “likes”)

      Something I’ve found on my own path is that with great reliability I can assert that our species “loves the candy” that can give us the most emotional satisfaction in the moment. Rather than examine things with logic, intellect and critical analysis, we examine it with just our feelings. (post-modernism)
      In the former case (the candy) if anything doesn’t service our feelings in that moment it MUST be discarded (or protested/lobbied against?) lest it upset our delicate emotional balance with “icky feelings” of intellectual growing pains.

      But in the latter case (logic and critical analysis) we can retain something even if we cannot find immediate “candy” in it for our emotions, or ego, our prejudices, our biases. (Or we can “allow” it, even if it tastes like say Buckleys, for the sake of benefit down the road!) And intelligence emerges and is exercises when all of these seemingly disparate things (that we’ve not thrown own because they’re not “candy”) can come together in a model that simplifies understanding the processes of “automatic” thought and action that hold us back from exercising our full potential (individually, and as a species).

      And then if we’re brave (heroic?), actually doing something about it!

      I find it a GREAT source of frustration, angst and anger in many . . . that socially and personally we are spinning more out-of-control than ever before . . . but fancy the solution far to complex to have any hope of influencing.

      It’s like we’re all waiting for that one critical news-cast factoid or pill from the pharma-scientists that will “enforce a fix” upon all of this: something that will “just do it” without us having to actually do anything personally.

      Reply

      You must be to vote.

      • spitfire3dc 4 months ago

        @griz I think the more we search for a fix, the more we end up needing one. It just might e a self defeating exercise in futility.

        The more we think about things, the higher the degree of liklihood that we will discover reinforcements for why things are f’d up. Can we identify solutions? Yes. Will they be enacted en masse? Doubtful.

        Find your personal pocket of fix. Experience it while you can and hope the vibration carries, but don’t sweat it if it doesn’t.

        Reply

        You must be to vote.

      • Author
        griz 4 months ago

        @Spitfire3dC
        I could counter that the self-defeating exercise seems to be doing nothing to understand the core of the problem unto possibly doing something about it.

        There is a way of retaining bits of critical information and mulling them over with intelligence and critical analysis that doesn’t “defeat us”. Most often it’s the overwhelming emotions that defeat us (the anger, frustration, angst over the illusion that we have no say in our environment or destiny).

        We cannot “enforce” solutions en mass (ie, legislate them, despite what abominations like Bill C-16 might say). But if enough people wake up intellectually a grass-roots movement could change it. The problem is that too many people are thinking such changes in the society are futile . . . while a very very few political identity-groups are slightly better organized and are running away with our laws, our institutions of higher learning, our media, our thoughts . . .

        It’s easier to say, “I’ll just fix up my cabin” . . . while neglecting repairs to the ship!

        And just for clarity, I’ve never maintained that the human emotions and instincts are useless and something to be stamped out. They need to be a part of the mix. It’s just that right now we’ve had just a very few very silly ideologies successfully invade our society and start to monkey . . . with our monkey-nature!
        (I think it was in a reply to @luftballooneyegouge I mentioned how “critical analysis and logic” for our species is turning into a contest of who can connect with the biggest flung turd-pie upon the other’s head! These ideologies are actively de-volving us!)

        Reply

        You must be to vote.

    • Author
      griz 4 months ago

      @Spitfire3dC
      Oh, and then because of this mounting frustration anger and angst . . . more and more people are going bonkers off the deep end or sinking into the depths of psychological/identity illness.

      Reply

      You must be to vote.

  4. Georockstar09 4 months ago

    @griz Oh hey, I got mentioned in a post! I had written a response to what you said this morning, but then deleted it ’cause I didn’t know if it would be appreciated or not but…

    Anyway, for me personally, as a researcher, I come up with a hypothesis and then test it out by collecting data, see what the data say, and then spell it out for people into a conclusion. I have to avoid “jumping” to conclusions that the data have little to do with, e.g. “velociraptor pinned its prey down with its large claw on its foot, therefore bird flight evolved from the ground up” – the two have nothing in common. My job is to let the data speak for themselves as much as possible, showing them in graphs and explaining HOW I got those data, and justifying that my methods were sound.

    Then there are the lecturers – university professors – who gather up all the discoveries about a topic and present them to their students in an intelligible way, minus all the scientific jargon, and giving it that “human” touch – which, I am guessing, is what you mean by philosopher, based on what you wrote in the description?

    So basically, at the bottom of the science pyramid is the raw data, then it’s the grad students and researchers finding the data and piecing them together, then there are the professors, above, that amalgamate all those discoveries into lectures and books – and in fact, they may be the ones who are known a lot better, because they are the ones in contact with the public. But the lecturers are not necessarily the ones doing all the research themselves. So bottom line, we all work together and we all need each other.

    I should also add, the best lecturers are those who enable the students to look at the data and understand them for themselves.

    Now that being said, professors and lecturers who put that human touch in there are still gleaners of knowledge, not necessarily wisdom. They state what IS, not what OUGHT TO BE. For me – and this is just me, mind you – gleaners of wisdom would be people who stand for positive change in the world, like Dr King, but most especially – and this is again just me – the Founder of my religion (and all the other religions of the world, too). He stated that the peace and tranquility of the world cannot be achieved until everyone on Earth becomes the well-wisher of all mankind. Those are examples of things I think of as true wisdom, things we OUGHT to do.

    There have been philosophies in the last century that did not stand for positive change, but for negative, especially marxism and nazism, that brought about a lot of suffering by playing god, “jumping” to conclusions based on strange studies here and there. Whereas true wisdom I think comes from God Himself and from those who humble themselves before Him. But then… that delves into the spiritual. But then again, I can’t think of anything more “human” than our spiritual nature. Otherwise everything is dry materialism.

    So that’s my perspective. I know that might be slightly unexpected from a researcher, but to be true to myself, when it comes to wisdom, I can’t divorce my spiritual background from my ideologies.

    Reply

    You must be to vote.

    • Author
      griz 4 months ago

      @Georockstar09
      I enjoyed reading your response. We’re all just hashing out what the Human condition and experience is, perhaps set against an expanse so transcendent that it baffles understanding. And I’m glad when I connect with someone who considers the quest worth whatever scorn or discomfort, admission of imperfection or outright ridicule or attack might come from this process.

      And your response gave me a lot to think about relating to the structure by which we glean and transmit knowledge and understanding person-to-person. I thank you for it.

      I have no contentions regarding what you shared in general, and specifically about the pyramidal structure of science and knowledge. And I’ve seen many of the teachers who very eloquently “add the human touch”, but stop there.

      I’ve encountered a very select few who go beyond this into perhaps genius territory. Perhaps the ones you allude to who don’t just regurgitate the data in a “nice” way, but who make it sing and dance in the minds of the students. It’s like the difference between a technically accomplished pianist performing a work without flaw . . . and someone who delivers it in such a way that it continues to move and breathe in you long after the concert is over.
      Or the movie that has you thinking about the deeper things of life hours after the lights have gone up?

      Maybe we don’t turn the spotlight on them as often as we could?

      Maybe there’s not all that many of them out there to turn the spotlight on??

      I don’t know. I was sort of free-pondering after hearing a lecture from someone who could be representative of the latter possibility above? They don’t just work in the realm of transmitting knowledge.
      They invite and encourage wisdom.

      And then tie in what you shared about “all true wisdom comes from God”.

      Reply

      You must be to vote.

©2018 Soul Sequel | All Rights Reserved

 
or

Log in with your credentials

or    

Forgot your details?

or

Create Account