5 ms·

Life Is More Meaningful Than Mere Facts Can Convey

25 points by robg 16y ago

jonsen 16y ago
"... modem examples like Martin Luther King or Ghandi" For sure they were great communicators. But ... ;)
- michael_dorfman 16y ago
  Every time I see "Gandhi" spelled as "Ghandi", I die a little inside. (And, just to be clear, it was NPR who got it wrong, not the poster above.)
  - exit 16y ago
    why? both spellings are pretty close to the same pronunciation.
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
    - shrikant 16y ago
      In English, yeah probably. In Hindi, not so much - the position of the 'h' matters. In any case, is that rule one applies to names? That it's okay to mangle the true spelling as long as the pronunciation remains the same?
    - michael_dorfman 16y ago
      Respect. A man as impressive and significant as Gandhi, and people can't be arsed to get his name right?
  - da5e 16y ago
    Hindi doesn't even use the same alphabet. So there is nothing that looks like Gandhi or Ghandi in Hindi at all. The equivalent translations are the same for both spellings.
splat 16y ago
I am reminded of this footnote in Feynman's Lectures on Physics: "Poets say science takes away from the beauty of the stars — mere globs of gas atoms. Nothing is "mere". I too can see the stars on a desert night, and feel them. But do I see less or more? The vastness of the heavens stretches my imagination — stuck on this carousel my little eye can catch one-million-year-old light. A vast pattern — of which I am a part... What is the pattern or the meaning or the why? It does not do harm to the mystery to know a little more about it. For far more marvelous is the truth than any artists of the past imagined it. Why do the poets of the present not speak of it? What men are poets who can speak of Jupiter if he were a man, but if he is an immense spinning sphere of methane and ammonia must be silent?"
- loup-vaillant 16y ago
  In the same vein: http://lesswrong.com/lw/oo/explaining_vs_explaining_away/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/oo/explaining_vs_explaining_away/
- bluekeybox 16y ago
  Physics is a rabbit hole and we are going deeper every year, but I doubt we will ever hit its bottom. One of the main outcomes of the 20th century physics was that it was shown that this hole is deeper than anyone has ever imagined. I don't think that any mystery has been taken away by this outcome, and I think that something much bigger has been added. The reason poets of the times past wrote verses about stars and not quarks is because they could not see quarks.
  - glhaynes 16y ago
    I personally bet that we will hit bottom, and pretty soon. But that's totally an unsupportable gut feeling (and certainly could be said to go contrary to experience thus far). This is really nice; thank you: "The reason poets of the times past wrote verses about stars and not quarks is because they could not see quarks."
    - bluekeybox 16y ago
araneae 16y ago
For the most part that was completely incomprehensible to me. I read it three times, though, and I think he was saying that knowledge was irrelevant when it came to spirituality, and that spirituality has to do with how we experience life. This I will politely disagree with, if that's what he actually said. Since he brought up Rumi, I thought I'd use him as an example. Rumi has said "I died a mineral, and became a plant. I died a plant and rose an animal. I died an animal and I was man. Why should I fear? When was I less by dying?" Here he is pulling in knowledge; knowledge of nutrient cycling, maybe even evolution. But I can respond in kind; I could answer his question, saying that "you're less by dying when you die a man and become minerals." Here I too am pulling from knowledge again; if it's true that "you" become "more" by going from plant to an animal- then surely it follows that you become "less" by traversing the opposite direction. And that is most definitely what happens when men die; they are reduced to their components by the process of decomposition. I don't see how anyone can completely decouple "spirituality" from knowledge, since all forms of spirituality I've encountered speak in the language of knowledge. And I don't see Rumi's statement is less or more spiritual than mine, either. Perhaps his is more optimistic, but there's plenty of pessimism in some forms of spiritualism.
- justsee 16y ago
  No, he is saying that knowledge on its own ('academic "knowing"'), separate from the experience, is insufficient. This is straight from the school of thought that says any great truths have to be understood at the experiential level, not just the intellectual level. A pedestrian codification of this is the "Child has to learn it for themselves" statement when parents attempt to impart life wisdom on offspring but realise that in itself is not enough. They see, perhaps for the first time, the real difference between understanding and Understanding. A more specific example is love. An observer studying the biological / physiological mechanisms involved, and immersing themselves in second-hand accounts of new romance could allow themselves to intellectually approximate human love, but experiencing it directly gives them a much deeper, experiental understanding than would otherwise be possible. The case is no different when it comes to the meaning of life. The answer to that question cannot be extracted and written down as knowledge, and instead must be derived from the full life experiences of each individual seeking an answer. As the author states 'the essence of the question is about experience, not facts'.
msg 16y ago
When is knowledge more than mere facts? When it's taken for truth and lived. The war between science and religion is only real for people who believe that science precludes a religious outlook, and vice versa. Science is about pattern recognition from observation. Religion is about living life from revealed or derived wisdom. Religion can be informed by science if it accepts science as part of wisdom. Science has obvious limitations to only what can be observed and explained or duplicated, and it can't get outside that box. But if you take a fact and intend to spend your limited life pursuing it, it should be real. It should be the truth. You shouldn't be wasting your life working from faulty assumptions, because as far as we can observe (pace Hinduism), this one life is our only chance to do some damage. Are there major differences in the life you live if you have a different set of facts? Do you have to decide? I would say yes for myself. But apathy like that of the editorialist will kill any amount of wisdom.

25 points by robg 16y ago

jonsen 16y ago

"... modem examples like Martin Luther King or Ghandi" For sure they were great communicators. But ... ;)

michael_dorfman 16y ago
Every time I see "Gandhi" spelled as "Ghandi", I die a little inside. (And, just to be clear, it was NPR who got it wrong, not the poster above.)
- exit 16y ago
  why? both spellings are pretty close to the same pronunciation.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - shrikant 16y ago
    In English, yeah probably. In Hindi, not so much - the position of the 'h' matters. In any case, is that rule one applies to names? That it's okay to mangle the true spelling as long as the pronunciation remains the same?
  - michael_dorfman 16y ago
    Respect. A man as impressive and significant as Gandhi, and people can't be arsed to get his name right?
- da5e 16y ago
  Hindi doesn't even use the same alphabet. So there is nothing that looks like Gandhi or Ghandi in Hindi at all. The equivalent translations are the same for both spellings.

splat 16y ago

I am reminded of this footnote in Feynman's Lectures on Physics: "Poets say science takes away from the beauty of the stars — mere globs of gas atoms. Nothing is "mere". I too can see the stars on a desert night, and feel them. But do I see less or more? The vastness of the heavens stretches my imagination — stuck on this carousel my little eye can catch one-million-year-old light. A vast pattern — of which I am a part... What is the pattern or the meaning or the why? It does not do harm to the mystery to know a little more about it. For far more marvelous is the truth than any artists of the past imagined it. Why do the poets of the present not speak of it? What men are poets who can speak of Jupiter if he were a man, but if he is an immense spinning sphere of methane and ammonia must be silent?"

loup-vaillant 16y ago
In the same vein: http://lesswrong.com/lw/oo/explaining_vs_explaining_away/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/oo/explaining_vs_explaining_away/
bluekeybox 16y ago
Physics is a rabbit hole and we are going deeper every year, but I doubt we will ever hit its bottom. One of the main outcomes of the 20th century physics was that it was shown that this hole is deeper than anyone has ever imagined. I don't think that any mystery has been taken away by this outcome, and I think that something much bigger has been added. The reason poets of the times past wrote verses about stars and not quarks is because they could not see quarks.
- glhaynes 16y ago
  I personally bet that we will hit bottom, and pretty soon. But that's totally an unsupportable gut feeling (and certainly could be said to go contrary to experience thus far). This is really nice; thank you: "The reason poets of the times past wrote verses about stars and not quarks is because they could not see quarks."
  - bluekeybox 16y ago

araneae 16y ago

For the most part that was completely incomprehensible to me. I read it three times, though, and I think he was saying that knowledge was irrelevant when it came to spirituality, and that spirituality has to do with how we experience life. This I will politely disagree with, if that's what he actually said. Since he brought up Rumi, I thought I'd use him as an example. Rumi has said "I died a mineral, and became a plant. I died a plant and rose an animal. I died an animal and I was man. Why should I fear? When was I less by dying?" Here he is pulling in knowledge; knowledge of nutrient cycling, maybe even evolution. But I can respond in kind; I could answer his question, saying that "you're less by dying when you die a man and become minerals." Here I too am pulling from knowledge again; if it's true that "you" become "more" by going from plant to an animal- then surely it follows that you become "less" by traversing the opposite direction. And that is most definitely what happens when men die; they are reduced to their components by the process of decomposition. I don't see how anyone can completely decouple "spirituality" from knowledge, since all forms of spirituality I've encountered speak in the language of knowledge. And I don't see Rumi's statement is less or more spiritual than mine, either. Perhaps his is more optimistic, but there's plenty of pessimism in some forms of spiritualism.

justsee 16y ago
No, he is saying that knowledge on its own ('academic "knowing"'), separate from the experience, is insufficient. This is straight from the school of thought that says any great truths have to be understood at the experiential level, not just the intellectual level. A pedestrian codification of this is the "Child has to learn it for themselves" statement when parents attempt to impart life wisdom on offspring but realise that in itself is not enough. They see, perhaps for the first time, the real difference between understanding and Understanding. A more specific example is love. An observer studying the biological / physiological mechanisms involved, and immersing themselves in second-hand accounts of new romance could allow themselves to intellectually approximate human love, but experiencing it directly gives them a much deeper, experiental understanding than would otherwise be possible. The case is no different when it comes to the meaning of life. The answer to that question cannot be extracted and written down as knowledge, and instead must be derived from the full life experiences of each individual seeking an answer. As the author states 'the essence of the question is about experience, not facts'.

msg 16y ago

When is knowledge more than mere facts? When it's taken for truth and lived. The war between science and religion is only real for people who believe that science precludes a religious outlook, and vice versa. Science is about pattern recognition from observation. Religion is about living life from revealed or derived wisdom. Religion can be informed by science if it accepts science as part of wisdom. Science has obvious limitations to only what can be observed and explained or duplicated, and it can't get outside that box. But if you take a fact and intend to spend your limited life pursuing it, it should be real. It should be the truth. You shouldn't be wasting your life working from faulty assumptions, because as far as we can observe (pace Hinduism), this one life is our only chance to do some damage. Are there major differences in the life you live if you have a different set of facts? Do you have to decide? I would say yes for myself. But apathy like that of the editorialist will kill any amount of wisdom.