A Thing of Beauty

Neurology is revolting against philosophy.  Nothing new, actually: physics did the same 5 centuries ago and started off on its long evolution towards 'objective science'.  It was then the logical consequence of an age-old fight between 'believing' and 'knowing' - a fight which is strongly linked to monotheistic cultures, and one which is still not entirely ended. Even today, there are still efforts at building bridges and bringing these two closer together.

But going down the road of reductionism, where one (mostly 'believing') is reduced to the other ('knowing'), may be a bridge too far.  Now there is Kevin Nelson, near-death neurologist, who claims that divine experiences find their origin in an error message emitted from the brainstem.  That sounds about the same as a statement that the Mona Lisa is a piece of wood with a little red, brown, green and a swab of black paint.

With all due respect for the scientific research on near-death experiences, of course.  But unless room is given to accommodate man and his feelings, his experience of beauty, in short: human existence, such reductionism reveals only a piece of the story of life.  Beware of megalomania... there is a difference between mechanism and cause.

Wish to react?  Just click the 'Comments' link ...

Me, You, and other distinctions

"Life is suffering", said the Buddha, and one does not have to monitor the newsflashes to be convinced of the truth of this statement.  It appears everything is shifting at once; the world we knew and which made us secure, is shaking in its roots.  Old structures, institutes and mentalities need to make place for new ones - willing or not. Even the trusted rhythms of nature are confused: is it fall, or spring?  The forsythia is blooming while its leaves fall; blackbirds, after 5 months of breeding in shifts this year, are getting territorial again....

And people feel increasingly, often subconsciously, cornered.  This feeling is expressed in a fossilization of opinions and behavior, in traffic, in business, in communications and politics....  ever more short-temperedness, suspicion and rigidity. We should take care not to fall into the ego-intentional habit of 'I don't care, as long as I get mine' of the heartless ego confronting all the not-ego (which is the rest of the world).  The stronger this exclusive 'either/or' approach, the sharper the situations which require an 'and/and' approach will be posed, and remain unsolvable.  It affects the socializing power of a community in its core.

Perhaps we should also rethink our old structure that distinguishes 'me' from 'you' ?  Are we not two waves on one and the same ocean?