Yet again this post is brought to you by the hippie post-inspiring machine.
The other day we were just talking about stuff, like social constructions dictating half of what we do, and the nature involved in decision making. You know, the sort of banality I'm into. As we spoke I left quite clear I was not just some kid who perhaps knew too much, I was a mad man. Having stated this, we shared some deep view ideas, and we found that in the superficial analysis of the world, we saw the same.
Our symptom observation was synchronized.
But then, as we went further into dissecting the human cosmology, I found our fundamental differences. We shared a big smile, each said "I agree to disagree, it makes me happy to find such a view" or so I think, we were at a bar, it could've been anything.
Our diagnostic and etiology was almost opposite.
But you know me, I wasn't going to be OK with just, "we've all got the right to say anything". So I thought, and found that his enlightenment of the world comes from spiritual search, and one of those classic journeys of self loss followed by epiphanies and learning. And so, his approach was spiritual (notice that spiritual and religious are two separated things), he believed in ultimate explanations for everything.
In the other hand there is me. My "enlightenment" comes from self-search, reading others ideas, encountering diversity; and most important: science, philosophy of science. Because of this, I believe in a indeterministic world, where chaos and uncertainty reign over all the things we know. And even if it all seems a too well made universe to be chaotic, is only because we know nothing else. As for deities and such, I don't bother saying if they are real or not. They exist in the ideals, traditions and cultures of people, they are rooted to the very foundations of culture. And so, if they exist in such a realm, and have a huge impact of humans, why do we care if they ultimately exist somewhere or not, in a way they exist in our culture and that's a real as something can get. (for us)
So, we kept on chatting and talked about nature, and humans, and sacrifice. We implied sacrifice was the only axiological human thing. (this is because I stupidly forgot about all the other animals that sacrifice for the well being of the community i.e. infected ants, sea gulls, bees, elephants etc.) And I said that all axiological and such actions should be measured by the amount of good you're making. And even if you're altruist, you're being a little bit selfish, because you're doing it to be morally rewarded. My point was: we, as humans, animals, and atomic individuals of the universe work in such a way that we do things depending on a cost/benefit system. Whatever we do that includes a cost, is because we estimate it has a greater benefit.
For this I think, Economy is much more natural than any other things, we think it is a despicable social ruinous construction made of human selfishness. Well, I think that view too is anthropocentric, as most of the "human race are idiots" statements. It is in our electrons.
Anyway, this caused a mayor (O.O) in my spiritual friend, who didn't comment any further.
I just mentioned I should try to take in some spiritual insight to complement my world view, to avoid confirmation bias and such. He agreed strongly.
Well this whole affair got me thinking about the different point of view and their origin. His story was one where he had strong and various external experiences, and those made him search from within to find an answer. Mine is a story with very weak and seldom external experiences, which has made me look into the outside, other's ideas and what we know about the universe, thus making me find an answer from the exterior.
There's a lot I could say about this, but it got me thinking about science and art. Art is finding answers from within, that could come in several interpretations for several people, it is in a way the most spiritual human action if you ask me. (spirit: that which is not material, what is art if not a way to bring into the material world something that exists only in our soul(mind)).
While science is looking for answers outside ourselves, it is looking for ways for the universe to answer our questions. It requires a method, and an understanding that can't accept many conclusions. It requires leaving any agenda behind but truth, even if that includes leaving behind humanity and spiritual needs if necessary.
So, which one is right? art? or science? If there is ever one to be right of course...
If each of us met in the mid point, what would it look like?
Or well, at least that's what I think, and what a preppy bar chat gave me for this weekend. (this future weekend of course)
in other bloggity matters.
ze design department has not been seen ever since.
ze other land seems infertile for the season. (let's hi-light seems)