RE: Does the head follow the heart in matters of truth?
March 17, 2018 at 2:45 pm
(This post was last modified: March 17, 2018 at 2:47 pm by Mystic.)
How to properly use reason, logic, and science is a huge debate of humans, just as how to approach spirituality is. Appeal to authority is the go to for some and everyone claims they reflected properly over what their authority figures teach, and that is why they recommend to learn from them. Everyone choose their idols and who they want to rely on to think for them.
All I can suggest is see the double standards that everyone does, and don't the same.
No seeker of knowledge believes in blindly following anyone, but almost ever claimer of seeker of knowledge relies on so few people at the top for their path to knowledge.
But we can't but error, and so we have to work with our errors and learn from people who reflected the issue already (no need to invent the wheel so to speak), right?
There is the pragmatic world (we need to learn from experts for skills) and there is the outlook views which love is to be guided by.
Humans don't go to fight over what is better way to program a program or we don't fight wars over software disputes on what is the best way to approach a problem in programming. This is why as hard as computer science is I find it therapeutically.
But to let go of attachments, attachments we have made in love based on falsehoods we erred in, that is no easy task.
The issue you get little attachment to change in field in programming, but to change the ways of humans, and to change their ways of love, yes, people have attachments.
Richard Dawkins is perhaps one of the most irrational human beings but most cunning, the way the ancients define intelligence, I would not say he is, but I would say he is a fast brain, is cunning, and has charisma.
And that is another thing, we are moving away from a lot of parameters of language, we've equated words together that were distinct in the past, and we are becoming clumsy with words and then assessing the past with redefining words.
All I can suggest is see the double standards that everyone does, and don't the same.
No seeker of knowledge believes in blindly following anyone, but almost ever claimer of seeker of knowledge relies on so few people at the top for their path to knowledge.
But we can't but error, and so we have to work with our errors and learn from people who reflected the issue already (no need to invent the wheel so to speak), right?
There is the pragmatic world (we need to learn from experts for skills) and there is the outlook views which love is to be guided by.
Humans don't go to fight over what is better way to program a program or we don't fight wars over software disputes on what is the best way to approach a problem in programming. This is why as hard as computer science is I find it therapeutically.
But to let go of attachments, attachments we have made in love based on falsehoods we erred in, that is no easy task.
The issue you get little attachment to change in field in programming, but to change the ways of humans, and to change their ways of love, yes, people have attachments.
Richard Dawkins is perhaps one of the most irrational human beings but most cunning, the way the ancients define intelligence, I would not say he is, but I would say he is a fast brain, is cunning, and has charisma.
And that is another thing, we are moving away from a lot of parameters of language, we've equated words together that were distinct in the past, and we are becoming clumsy with words and then assessing the past with redefining words.
