How would science be different if it went post-rational and post-materialist ?

[Jack River]

Just now, Serotoninluv said:

And where did their genuis of symbols arise from?

You mean for example e=mc2?

[Forestluv]

5 minutes ago, Jack River said:

You mean for example e=mc2?

How is e=mc2 like The Magic Flute?

[Jack River]

10 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

And where did their genuis of symbols arise from?

The insight I speak of is not the product of thought/the past. So it is not a continuation of that that has been invented by thought. What did Einstein do that points to something that? 

I know he had trouble meeting with I think it was Bohr. They both couldn’t commune as they both held to there own bias/opinion/theory. This is a sign that they lacked this insight I speak of. 

[Forestluv]

1 minute ago, Jack River said:

The insight I speak of is not the product of thought/the past. So it is not a continuation of that that has been invented by thought. What did Einstein do that points to something that? 

I know he had trouble meeting with I think it was Bohr. They both couldn’t commune as they both held to there own bias/opinion/theory. This is a sign that they lacked this insight I speak of. 

It’s not about Einstein. You can pick any scientific genuis.

[Jack River]

What I mean is how do you know the essence of there intuition wasn’t derived from the limited field of thought? If that makes it clearer. 

[Jack River]

Is this intuition the product of cultivated time,as in continual accumulation of knowledge, experience, or does it arise when that movement of cultivation/the accumulated, as in thought, totally end?

 

Edited October 21, 2018 by Jack River

[Jack River]

I always wondered the distinction between holistic insight and intuition. I have a feeling there may not be the same. 

[Forestluv]

7 minutes ago, Jack River said:

What I mean is how do you know the essence of there intuition wasn’t derived from the limited field of thought? If that makes it clearer. 

I don’t see a “their”.

It’s a space that transcends science, music, art, philosophy, poetry, nature etc. 

Leonardo Da Vinci was the greatest mind ever. Not because he did many diverse things well, but because he did one thing well.

When I converse with my colleagues in art, we aren’t talking art or science.

[Jack River]

10 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

I don’t see a “their”.

On my phone ?. Hehe

10 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

It’s a space that transcends science, music, art, philosophy, poetry, nature etc. 

So thought ends so there can be this creative movement? 

Nature ? 

Do you see that desire/psychological striving in any way for example is reactionary and is an inherent limitation of thought? So if desire was involved in any way so was thought and therefore what they came up with didn’t transend thought at all. 

I don’t know, just exploring. 

Edited October 21, 2018 by Jack River

[Robert]

33 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

You are asking me to explain it in rational terms. I’m trying to bring you into post-rational space. 

I already told you... I've been to post-rational space years ago. I know what you're talking about.

I guess we will just agree to disagree on this whole thing.

[Forestluv]

4 minutes ago, Robert said:

I already told you... I've been to post-rational space years ago. I know what you're talking about.

I guess we will just agree to disagree on this whole thing.

Ok. ?? 

I wish you the best along your path. 

[Robert]

2 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

Ok. ?? 

I wish you the best along your path. 

Thanks.

You too.

[Forestluv]

26 minutes ago, Jack River said:

On my phone ?. Hehe

So thought ends so there can be this creative movement? 

Nature ? 

Do you see that desire/psychological striving in any way for example is reactionary and is an inherent limitation of thought? So if desire was involved in any way so was thought and therefore what they came up with didn’t transend thought at all. 

I don’t know, just exploring. 

Leonardo Da Vinci had thoughts. Yet he didn’t think this as Biology and that as engineering and this as painting and that as philosophy.

[Jack River]

6 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

Leonardo Da Vinci had thoughts. Yet he didn’t think this as Biology and that as engineering and this as painting and that as philosophy. 

So what were the nature of his thoughts? Not a response of memory/the past, which projected forward as forecasting or anticipating? Or were those thoughts Not implicitly bias as thought tends to naturally lean towards?

Edited October 21, 2018 by Jack River

[Forestluv]

1 minute ago, Jack River said:

So what were the nature of his thoughts? Not a response of memory? Not implicitly bias as thought tends to naturally lean towards. 

A child exploring a creek is doing science, art, music, yoga and performance. He hasn’t yet learned that these are supposed to be separate things.

Adults need to deconstruct as they evolve.

[Jack River]

He was a most excellent forecaster or prediction expert right?  

[Forestluv]

1 minute ago, Jack River said:

He was a most excellent forecaster or prediction expert right?  

I don’t know.

He was off the chart on curiosity about everything. He would suddenly get curious about random things like how a bird’s tongue works. He lived in the magical world Leo has been describing lately. 

[Jack River]

That’s what I’m wondering about. Was this intuition born of this holistic seeing/truth, or was it the product of cultivated thought. From what he is known for like prediction, forcast I tend to be inclined to say it was the product of thought. But I’m not sure either. That’s why I’m wondering if it was intuition based or holistic perception/insight based. A seeing  totlay empty of thought. The mysterious SEEING without the veil of the intellect/the past. 

Anyway thanks for your posts man. I will look into this a little deeper?

Edited October 21, 2018 by Jack River

[Forestluv]

5 minutes ago, Jack River said:

That’s what I’m wondering about. Was this intuition born of this holistic seeing/truth, or was it the product of cultivated thought. From what he is known for like prediction, forcast I tend to be inclined to say it was the product of thought. But I’m not sure either. That’s why I’m wondering if it was intuition based or holistic perception/insight based. A seeing  totlay empty of thought. The mysterious SEEING without the veil of the intellect/the past. 

Anyway thanks for your posts man. I will look into this a little deeper?

You as well. I hadn’t thought of distinctions between holistic perception and intuition. Perhaps they are integrated?

I need to contemplate some more. 

[Robert]

1 minute ago, Outer said:

I don't understand this thread.

Why is an university professor arguing about this with some random people?

What are you doing?

If you don't have anything to contribute to this thread, then leave. Stop asking stupid questions. If you really want an answer to what you asked and you're not just here to start trouble, ask him over PM. Thanks.