Why don't Fundamentalist schools...

[rmcrobertson]

1. Any well-taught martial artist should know that there is, in fact, no moral killing. There probably is necessary killing; there may very well be, "lesser of two evils," killing--but moral killing? Fahgeddaboutit.

2. Arnisador is, of course, quite corrdct. This recurrent fantasy that, "it's all just different opinions," really needs to go away. It's not; as he mentioned, science is a way of separating opinions from reality.

3. On the other hand, you don;t have to believe in the physical universe. Indeed, from a strictly-fundamentalist--that weird version of neo-Platonism--standpoint, the universe is not only irreal, but more or less contemptible.

4. Strictly speaking from a Christian viewpoint, the fact of killing--any kind of killing--is another mark of our Fallen state.

 

[Rich Parsons]

1. Any well-taught martial artist should know that there is, in fact, no moral killing. There probably is necessary killing; there may very well be, "lesser of two evils," killing--but moral killing? Fahgeddaboutit.

While I teach that the best course is to leave, to run away, to get away, to avoid, this is not what the post stated.

By your comment of that it is "THOU SHALL NOT KILL" you have made it beyond this discussion of martial artists. You have judged all the men and women of this country and every other country who have defended or gone to war, and had to do things that were not normally acceptable with in a civilized society.

Any well taught educator would understand the difference, and present it with options and theories and not with their own prejudices.


:asian:

 

[tshadowchaser]

Any well-taught martial artist should know that there is, in fact, no moral killing

find fault in this because I still believe that a martial art is a war art, and war is about killing and maiming others to achieve victory.

Now in a sport school of martial like studies the statement might be true

Also I personaly don't like anyone telling me what my morals should be

 

[heretic888]

There isn't really extremism on the scientific side.

Hrmmm..... I wouldn't necessarily agree with this position.

There are numerous forms of extremism (or, rather, reductionism) to be found among scientists, but the actual "science" of these positions is dubious.

This includes the famous "scientism" of many physicists, the behaviorist school of psychology, the "blank slate" of many of social scientists (particularly anthropologists and women's studies), and over-assumptions of evolutionary psychology.

The difference, of course, is that these individuals' do have scientific evidence to support their positions. The only problem is that overstep the logical boundaries of their data, and try and make their position paradigmatic.

Its the difference, for example, in noting that environmental factors and experiences clearly have an influence in human behavior ---- and then jumping to the claim that ALL human behavior is a result of external conditioning, and that we're all born into these magical "blank slates". There are similar examples of this in physics, biology, anthropology, feminism, linguistics, and what have you.

Personally, I just think its a whole lotta academic hubris. But, that's just me.

.... Darwin's theory of evolution, however, does not fall into this category of reductionism. The claim that it is the most scientifically sound theory of speciation is right on.

 

[heretic888]

Indeed, from a strictly-fundamentalist--that weird version of neo-Platonism--standpoint, the universe is not only irreal, but more or less contemptible.

Strictly speaking, neo-Platonism --- as in the philosophy originally taught by Plotinus in the 4th century CE --- posits that the physical universe is an emanation or manifestation of the Divine. Or, as Plato himself put it in Timaeus, "a living God". Very similar to Vedanta in that account.

Of course, both Platonism and neo-Platonism cheerfully embrace the pursuit of logic, reason, and scientific progress --- which religious fundamentalism does not.

 

[heretic888]

find fault in this because I still believe that a martial art is a war art, and war is about killing and maiming others to achieve victory.

So, lemme get this straight...

You think an overtly literal interpretation of the term "martial art" takes precedence as to what's actually taught in the majority of martial arts??

Errrmmm...... ok.

Also I personaly don't like anyone telling me what my morals should be

Then ignore them. But, you have to be turning a blind eye if you truly believe moral development is not part and parcel of martial arts training.

 

[tshadowchaser]

1. yes a martial art is a war art and is meant to teach a person how to survive a battle. Now I agree that the majority of what is taught today is not that



2. Never said that I simply said I don't like other people trying to tell me what is moral.

I do try to instill respect for others in my classes as well as truthfulness, completion of tasks started, etc. but I do not believe in telling my students that they can not do something (I may advise against it but not forbid). My believe are mine and not necessarily that of the next person so I don't feel that I should impose all of my believes on my students. We all come from different backgrounds of religion, politics, ethics, etc. who am I to say I am the only correct person of thought.

I surly do not belive that any religious, political, or scientific group should tell me how to run my classes

I may be straying off from the original topic if so please ignor my remarks and continue the discussion

 

[arnisador]

This includes the famous "scientism" of many physicists, the behaviorist school of psychology, the "blank slate" of many of social scientists (particularly anthropologists and women's studies), and over-assumptions of evolutionary psychology.

Most of these examples are from the social sciences, albeit the more scientific/bilogical side thereof. If by the scientivism of physicists you mean the view that everything can be reduced to physics and hence is (classically) predictable, "Descartes' Dream", then I might agree that that's a far-reaching position, though surely not absurd.

.... Darwin's theory of evolution, however, does not fall into this category of reductionism. The claim that it is the most scientifically sound theory of speciation is right on.

That's what I intended to refer to in my post--there isn't really extremism on the evolutionary theory side. In all of science, yes, one can find some extremism.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Ideally, Quakers and Amish reject violence under any and all situation, because they hold that violence is inherently wrong. And, it's bad for you. They are right.

As much fun as it is to insult, try going back and reading what I actually wrote. What I actually wrote that while violence is always wrong, there are probably many situations in which it's LESS wrong than the alternatives. And there may even be situations in which you cannot avoid violence, and should not, no matter how wrong it is morally.

Some version of this is precisely what Christianity teaches. Or did Christ actually say, "Don't turn the other cheek--plug the bastard, it's OK by me?"

Other points: many right-wing Fundamentalists--check the Promise Keepers!--teach things that are about one jump from the Taliban. I wish people would read some feminist theory before they start off on the, "blank slate," bit. And I was glad to see the agreement on what neo-Platonism says about the world...which may be an "emanation," but which is as grass and, for Christians, is not where one's primary focus should be.

 

[heretic888]

Most of these examples are from the social sciences, albeit the more scientific/bilogical side thereof.

Personally, I can think of examples of reductionism --- of one form or another --- in pretty much any science or field of study. Even in the arts.

If by the scientivism of physicists you mean the view that everything can be reduced to physics and hence is (classically) predictable, "Descartes' Dream", then I might agree that that's a far-reaching position, though surely not absurd.

Physical reductionism is one form of scientism, but by no means is it the only one.

And, yes: given the data we have available to us now, an attempt to "reduce" all of existence to any thing in particular is pretty damned absurd. Emerging property systems are much more convincing models, IMO.

That's what I intended to refer to in my post--there isn't really extremism on the evolutionary theory side. In all of science, yes, one can find some extremism.

Yup.

 

[heretic888]

Other points: many right-wing Fundamentalists--check the Promise Keepers!--teach things that are about one jump from the Taliban.

Yup.

I wish people would read some feminist theory before they start off on the, "blank slate," bit.

Have, actually --- although, I said "women's studies", not "feminism".

And, on top of that, I wasn't even making a generalization about the field as a whole, but to certain variables and factions within that field.

And I was glad to see the agreement on what neo-Platonism says about the world...which may be an "emanation," but which is as grass and, for Christians, is not where one's primary focus should be.

One of the telling differences between Neo-Platonism (a la Plotinus) and traditional Christianity (a la Augustine) is that the Platonist puts forward that the manifest universe, just as it is, is a manifestation and an expression of the Divine. Plotinus was very critical of the Gnostic Christians of his day for maintaining the world was fundamentally "evil" or "wrong".

Traditional Christian theology posits, however, that the manifest physical world is a "mistake". Or, is "fallen". Less Clement of Alexandria, and more Pat Robertson.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Actually, you cited both "women's studies," and "feminism," as examples of extreme, "nurture," positions.

here's the quote:

"...the "ACTUAL SCIENCE" of these positions is DUBIOUS.

THIS INCLUDES the famous "scientism" of many physicists, the behaviorist school of psychology, the "blank slate" of many of social scientists (particularly anthropologists and WOMEN'S STUDIES), and over-assumptions of evolutionary psychology.

The difference, of course, is that these individuals' do have scientific evidence to support their positions. The only problem is that {they} OVERSTEP THE LOGICAL BOUNDARIES OF THEIR DATA, and try and make their position paradigmatic.

Its the difference, for example, in noting that environmental factors and experiences clearly have an influence in human behavior ---- and then jumping to the claim that ALL human behavior is a result of external conditioning, and that we're all born into these magical "blank slates". THERE ARE SIMILAR EXAMPLES of this IN physics, biology, anthropology, FEMINISM, linguistics, and what have you.

Personally, I just think ITS A WHOLE LOTTA ACADEMIC HUBRIS."

(capitals mine)

Please give examples of precisely what women's studies/feminist discussions you mean, citing author, title, and full references, so that I can look them up.

And speaking of overstepping logical boundaries and goying way beyond the data...Ken Wilber?

 

[heretic888]

Actually, you cited both "women's studies," and "feminism," as examples of extreme, "nurture," positions.

Heh. My mistake. :asian:

Please give examples of precisely what women's studies/feminist discussions you mean, citing author, title, and full references, so that I can look them up.

I'm on a public computer at the moment, so I'll have to get back to you after I've reviewed some of my materials.

And speaking of overstepping logical boundaries and goying way beyond the data...Ken Wilber?

*raises eyebrow, pondering the +250 references in Integral Psychology alone*

Uhhh... sure. Whatever you say, Rob.

 

[arnisador]

And, yes: given the data we have available to us now, an attempt to "reduce" all of existence to any thing in particular is pretty damned absurd. Emerging property systems are much more convincing models, IMO.

I think complex adaptive systems theory holds great promise. (We just had John Casti here to give a couple of talks on it.) The Santa Fe Institute is hot right now. But, the comment seems off-topic. The issue wasn't about a convincing argument but about scientivistic extremism in the behavior of scientists. What's emergence got to do with it?

We can't predict the future with certainty at all given quantum physics plus no hidden variables, so that's that...if the Copenhagen interpretation is right.

 

[elder999]

Ideally,
Some version of this is precisely what Christianity teaches. Or did Christ actually say, "Don't turn the other cheek--plug the bastard, it's OK by me?"

.

Actually,the case has been made that turning the other cheek was meant as a fine bit of civil resistance-a way of confounding the person who struck you.

In those times, much as in the Middle East today, one used one hand for eating and another for personal hygeine. Moreover, one struck an inferior with the back of the hand, not in an overhand manner or slap. Thusly, someone who was felt (by a member of a Roman legion stationed in Jerusalem, say) to be beneath them would be struck by the back of the left hand. To turn the other cheek, then, was to say, "Go ahead and hit me, but do so as an equal," which, naturally the Roman would not do. Of course, the pragmatic thing was not to resist physically, as one would be killed, so turning the other cheek was the next best thing.....

 

[Ray]

In those times, much as in the Middle East today, one used one hand for eating and another for personal hygeine.

I am thankful that I can eat with both hands without fear of contamination (not that it would stop me, oink).

 

[heretic888]

But, the comment seems off-topic. The issue wasn't about a convincing argument but about scientivistic extremism in the behavior of scientists. What's emergence got to do with it?

Because, if the "emergent properties" models turn out in the long-run to be right (so to speak), then this kicks in the *** the idea that our great and wondrous Universe can be reduced to Any One Thing. Like, oh say, atoms or quarks or strings or m-branes.

Because, really, that's the whole point of all the reductionist philosophies --- and, make no mistake, they are philosophies and not sciences --- that we can reduce all of manifestation into The One Thing. Whether its atoms or cultural constructions or socioeconomic "modes of production" or even individual opinions.

Its not so much that all these guys are wrong, so to speak, but that they take themselves to far.

 

[heretic888]

Actually,the case has been made that turning the other cheek was meant as a fine bit of civil resistance-a way of confounding the person who struck you.

Actually, my guess is that's a load of crap given by many a modern Christian leader and theologian to justify the historical violence of the Christian Institution.

Love thy enemy and turn the other cheek didn't originate with "Jesus Christ". The likes of Plato, Pythagoras, Socrates, and Epictetus had uttered similar sentiments and philosophies --- some of which the Gospel writers ripped-off verbatim --- centuries prior to the Common Era.

And, guess what?? They meant pretty much the same thing that people like the Quakers interpret them to mean: absolute, radical pacifism and non-violence.

Besides, the entire idea that the Gospels have anything to do with "the Middle East" is fairly dubious. They were Greek texts written for a Greek audience and expounded Greek philosophies.

Laterz.

 

[arnisador]

Because, if the "emergent properties" models turn out in the long-run to be right (so to speak), then this kicks in the *** the idea that our great and wondrous Universe can be reduced to Any One Thing. Like, oh say, atoms or quarks or strings or m-branes.

The idea behind Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS) is that apparently complicated behaviors can emerge "unexpectedly" from simple rules. (Boids, Game of Life, etc.) The simple rules explaining complicated phenomena is precisely reductionistic, no? A CAS reduces complex things to simple "programs" (I don't like that word here).

Philosophy...paradigm...to me, we're talking about models, not (necessarily) reality. A CAS is a model, just like a system of PDEs.

 

[elder999]

Actually, my guess is that's a load of crap given by many a modern Christian leader and theologian to justify the historical violence of the Christian Institution.

Love thy enemy and turn the other cheek didn't originate with "Jesus Christ". The likes of Plato, Pythagoras, Socrates, and Epictetus had uttered similar sentiments and philosophies --- some of which the Gospel writers ripped-off verbatim --- centuries prior to the Common Era.

And, guess what?? They meant pretty much the same thing that people like the Quakers interpret them to mean: absolute, radical pacifism and non-violence.

Besides, the entire idea that the Gospels have anything to do with "the Middle East" is fairly dubious. They were Greek texts written for a Greek audience and expounded Greek philosophies.

Laterz.

Jesus entered the temple area and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves. 13“It is written,” he said to them, “ ‘My house will be called a house of prayer,’ but you are making it a ‘den of robbers.”

This was not the action of a pacifist.

In the analyzing "turn the other cheek" phrase of he sermon on the mount,it's imporant to remember that Jesus is in a semetic culture, albeit a Hellenized one and specifically says the right cheek. The cultural significance is that the striker has used his or her (yeah right, 2000 years ago a woman striking a man) left hand to do the deed. The symbolism is two-fold. One, the left hand is the unclean hand used for dealing with filth, bodily and otherwise. Two, the right hand is the sword hand of a soldier (left-handedness was not an option in the Greco/Roman run Syrian Legion) so if the soldier is using the left hand they consider the slappee to be a non-threat. Should that person then get up and present "the other cheek" they are telling the agressor that they ARE resistant and will have to be beaten or killed before they will be ignored. In other words, I'm scrappin' for a fight. Hence Peter, at the request of Jesus, carries a sword, and is rebuked only when he stands between Jesus and the cross. Judas Iscariot's name refers to the Sicarri, a zealot revolutionary sect at the time, literally, those who hold the sword, and Jesus overturns the tables at the temple, in some accounts (John) whipping those present-effectively thumbing his nose at all authority in Jerusalem, and violently.

Exegesis is alweays open to intepretation, but they become much narrower when one has read the source documents in their original languages-Aramaic and Greek-as I have-and, just for the record, I'm not a Christian,at least not in the conventional sense of the word, though i was raised as one.