I never heard anything more true.

First of all, Jeff initially got the meaning of the quote all wrong. The discussion should have been only about the lack of enthusiasm for the processes behind the work that produces technology. The quote's writer, like me, is perhaps much too intrigued by the processes and sees them as infinitely more profound and interesting than the faster chip they finally result in.

And, indeed, as suggested by Chris below, results of scientific thought range farther than the mechanics they create or require (and thus advance) in order to conduct observations. Scientific thought, as I think SII believes, ranges through and ingulfs ideas about perception, fosters keen ivestigation of the nature of the mind that creates these thoughts, oneself, in how
selves work and think and what they can know, and want to know, about other selves, the nature of existence, and thus, the nature of all that is. These elements are integral to each other and lead, in almost exactly this procession, one from the other -- at least in my mind. I can't think about myself or the way I understand division, say, without realizing that the center that creates my understanding of the concept "division" also sculps my understanding of the concept break-up, or the concept, "he-would-have-given-you-two-dimes-and-a-nickel-like-you-asked-if-you-hadn't-said-"do-you-ride-bikes"-but-he -will-nowlie-and-say-he-only-has-quarters-and-give-you-one-of-those."

If I notice that I use the same tools to understand these two different situations then this leads to the next step down the latter and I think about the nature of perception in general. Then I think about the individual that harbors it, and then about how it transfers and works within all people and humanity, or any intelligent species, as a group. And so on until I come up with the Buddhist-like conclusions in Chris's message.

Along the way, I also, incidentally, come up with his conclusions about scientists.

Maya

> In sum, so-called scientists who have not taken a look at how they formulate
> ideas--knowledge-- may blindly criticize profound notions that are merely
> perceived at a superficial level. Idol worship is such a notion. It is
> discarded as superficial when in fact the theory of knowledge behind it is
> radically profound. It is vastly deeper than scientific realism. Our
> misguided scientists need to expand their narrow realist paradigm to include
> an understanding of perception and the perceiver, as Albert Einstein did.
>
> Love,
>
> Chris
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 22:28:40 -0700
> From: Brady Hess <brady@coho.net>
> To: "Eric R. Weeks" <weeks@deas.harvard.edu>
> Cc: amanda.duncan@intel.com, science@lists.pdx.edu
> Subject: Re: quote of the week
>
> A major percentage of the world's population believes that idols of
> stone, metal, and wood are living gods. This is not the least
> preposterous delusion that mankind subjects themselves to yet it is so
> popular. Perhaps it is not so much the mind which rules our perceptions
> of truth vs. falsehood, but the will and emotions. If so, what hope do
> we have as a species of living up to our full potential for even a short
> period of time? How will we ever stop the madness???
> -Brady Hess
>
> "Eric R. Weeks" wrote:
>
> > > I think we should be careful about being too critical of
> > > society in general for embracing technology, but not the
> > > science behind it.
> >
> > I do want to be a little critical, although perhaps I can be
> > critical both of society and scientists. It bothers me that
> > not only do some people not embrace the science, but they
> > are actively hostile towards science: They really don't
> > want to hear scientists tell them that astrology is wrong,
> > magnet therapy is wrong, that electric power lines aren't
> > causing cancer.
> >
> > For example, consider "theraputic touch" therapy, where the
> > practitioner manipulates the human energy field to help people
> > feel better. There was that famous test about a year ago
> > where a young girl tested the ability of TT practitioners to
> > sense the human energy field; the few that volunteered scored
> > no better than chance.