science
Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2001 3:52 pm
An analogy is given to describe the situation of the accidental
discovery
of the string theory before the development of mathematics advanced
enough to
I would argue for a substitution of the word describe for the word
explain in the quote above.
An explanation may be inclusive of both how and why; while a description
would
be more exclusive to the how of the matter. It is with that orientation
that I
view the Universe and respond to the question of god(s) intention.
I don't believe that we can establish a universal why that is without
issue; as contrasted with
the more likely achievment of a universal how, as one seeks to explain
while the other
describes.
Explanations have a propensity to flow from that which is knowable;
while descriptions
flow from the unknowable. That which is knowable is connected to the
intellect; while, the
unknowable is more aligned with intuition.
In the furtherance of rekindling elements of our childhood I suggest to
my pts.
to seek and encourage conditions of strangeness for which circumstance
they
must call upon their intuition to guide their path, as opposed to
following a path
which they know. They may be able to both explain and describe a path
which they know; but, they can only describe a path which is foreign to
their
knowlege base.
Desriptions lend themselves to flexibility as they are by definition a
singular point of view,
and this orientation of perspective finds linkage to the notion, 'seek
and follow the path
of least resistance' which infers fluid relations.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
discovery
of the string theory before the development of mathematics advanced
enough to
I would argue for a substitution of the word describe for the word
explain in the quote above.
An explanation may be inclusive of both how and why; while a description
would
be more exclusive to the how of the matter. It is with that orientation
that I
view the Universe and respond to the question of god(s) intention.
I don't believe that we can establish a universal why that is without
issue; as contrasted with
the more likely achievment of a universal how, as one seeks to explain
while the other
describes.
Explanations have a propensity to flow from that which is knowable;
while descriptions
flow from the unknowable. That which is knowable is connected to the
intellect; while, the
unknowable is more aligned with intuition.
In the furtherance of rekindling elements of our childhood I suggest to
my pts.
to seek and encourage conditions of strangeness for which circumstance
they
must call upon their intuition to guide their path, as opposed to
following a path
which they know. They may be able to both explain and describe a path
which they know; but, they can only describe a path which is foreign to
their
knowlege base.
Desriptions lend themselves to flexibility as they are by definition a
singular point of view,
and this orientation of perspective finds linkage to the notion, 'seek
and follow the path
of least resistance' which infers fluid relations.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]