Jaguar I made my first post on the issue of definition because we tend to treat knowledge in two distinctly different ways based on whether we are trying to CAPITALIZE it.
Virtually all talk of *absolutes* inevitably invokes a mystical appeal of the supernatural whether through hard determinism or theology. The argument that there can be only one correct (or best) solution to any problem for example is one of the common misconceptions that simple perspectives of absolute truth tend to lead to.
Conversely I agree with the argument that many alternatives *always* exist and the likely *absolute truth* is there is no one best solution but that *best* is a relative rather than a truly *superlative* term.
However I digress, though it is relevant and I will return to the point because I suspect the problem isn't really that absolute truth does or doesn't exist; it is that there is absolutely no *absolute* referent point from which to perceive it. IOW's even if absolute truth exists, all we possess are relativist perspectives of it.
This problem also derives from the confusion of the *desire* or *need* for absolutes that *subjectively corrupts* the objectivity of analysis for *definition* and introduces at least some portion of the relativism of perspective.
We can start with a look at general grammar to develop one solid indication of the perspective of our psychological dependence for *certainty*. This cognitive aspect determines our degree of *confidence,* which is the measure of
trust or faith that many experience or seek. However this is not *true* knowledge absolute or otherwise, though as a product of empirical presumption it is practical and I suspect derived from the pragmatic necessity to be decisive in the struggle for survival evolutionarily.
Belief in the causal repetition of phenomenon is not knowledge, it might better be understood as pattern recognition but it leads to knowledge when the observation induces a person to analyze as accurately as possible the deterministic factors. To explain about the cited reference the conundrum of the
Soul versus Mind is actually dependent on a parallel aspect of cognition.
In the aforementioned discussion Dawkins goes to great length to elaborate on two principle conditions of the Soul, which he identifies as *Soul 1* and *Soul 2* and basically Soul 1 is what we would be better to describe as Mind and Soul 2 is an appeal to some abstract *absolute* referent point for the discernment of *Truth*. The problem is that Soul 2 is essentially a Supernatural Reference Point so as to overcome the Objective problem of being *subject* to materialism.
In other words in order to try and pragmatically perceive *absolute truth* (aside from the omniscience dilemma which I don’t think is required anymore than single solutions) one must overcome subjectivity and since this introduces the conflicts of causality and Heisenbergian Uncertainty (or Chaos and Order) one almost instinctive invention of the mind may be to try and go *outside* the Universe to gain an objective perspective.
It is then no small irony that this may actually be an essential aspect of cognition and reflected in the
duality of belief and knowledge that also is reflected in the upper and lower case usage of how we define *truth* and may actually be encrypted into the genetics of brain design and cognitive function.
I will let this suffice for now as it is a big bite to swallow but here are two quotes from the article:
Is science killing the soul? This is a cunning title, because it cunningly mixes two different meanings of soul. The first and oldest meaning of soul, which I'm going to call Soul One, takes off from one set of definitions. I'm going to quote several related definitions from the Oxford dictionary:
"The principle of life in man or animals -- animate existence."
"The principle of thought and action in man commonly regarded as an entity distinct from the body, the spiritual part of man in contrast to the purely physical."
"The spiritual part of man regarded as surviving after death, and as susceptible of happiness or misery in a future state."
"The disembodied spirit of a deceased person regarded as a separate entity and as invested with some amount of form and personality."
So Soul One refers to a particular theory of life. It's the theory that there is something non-material about life, some non-physical vital principle. It's the theory according to which a body has to be animated by some anima. Vitalized by a vital force. Energized by some mysterious energy. Spiritualized by some mysterious spirit. Made conscious by some mysterious thing or substance called consciousness. You'll notice that all those definitions of Soul One are circular and non-productive. It's no accident.
Julian Huxley once satirically likened vitalism to the theory that a railway engine works by "force-locomotif." I don't always agree with Julian Huxley, but here he hit the nail beautifully. In the sense of Soul One, science has either killed the soul or is in the process of doing so.
But there is a second sense of soul, Soul Two, which takes off from another one of the Oxford dictionary's definitions:
"Intellectual or spiritual power. High development of the mental faculties. Also, in somewhat weakened sense, deep feeling, sensitivity."
In this sense, our question tonight means, Is science killing soulfulness? Is it killing esthetic sensitivity, artistic sensibility, creativity? The answer to this question, Is science killing Soul Two?, is a resounding No.
The very opposite is the case. But it is a question worth pursuing, because there have been many people, from genuinely great poets all the way down to Brian Appleyard and Fay Weldon, who've given a strong Yes answer to the question, Is science killing the soul? It's Soul Two that Keats and Lamb meant when they thought that Newton had destroyed all the poetry of the rainbow when he unwove it.
So when discussing the Mind and Soul, like your search for absolute truth you will find a kind of dual meaning (upper and lower case) that is no accident because it overlaps in a kind of pernicious and all pervasive, if not ubiquitous duality for meaning that can almost always be demonstrated in this upper and lower case manner. But it is also completely interwoven in the elemental aspects of the debate over the existence of *souls* *God* the *Universe* and virtually all *absolutes* by definition.
If Soul 1 as Dawkins calls it is essentially the mind by a different name then it is no mere coincidence that the mind invents Soul 2 so as to better gain an objective reference point in order to perceive what it desires to qualify as *objective* or *absolute* truth.
The rational mind may need such validation for a kind psychological *triangulation* of the aspects for *self definition* and regardless of whether it exists I suspect we would seek to invent the idea of absolute truth. However this may also be why unraveling the meme of religion is so vital to understanding evolutionary psychology and why religion can go from being a kind of *prosthetic conceptual device* promoting cognitive development to a crutch impeding it, as many become dependent on *fundamental* models that have not adapted to integrate an expanding database of knowledge and ideas.
Sorry about the lengthy response but this overlaps a paper I am writing and I decided to present the thoughts in whole cloth rather than snippets.
Edited by Lazarus Long, 07 April 2005 - 04:36 AM.
