To push back on this slightly: there are dangers in indulging too much in this type if thinking specifically when it comes to the issue of UFOs and even the paranormal to some extent. The reason being is because there is so much propaganda and noise in these topics, particularly regarding UFOs.
It's extremely easy to get lost in a hall of mirrors and never get any answers; when there truly are answers to be had, you simply cannot discern where to find them, because you are now trapped in a belief system. Of course, this isn't always the case, but I maintain that it can be a dangerous topic to explore.
More broadly speaking, I think you make a worthwhile point.
Thank you. It is indeed interesting how the attempt to see around the corners of other people’s belief systems, and to become aware of the echo chamber-like nature of all such systems, can often become a belief system of its own, or else branch off into an unacknowledged one.
The easy way out, so to speak, is to become aware of the underlying belief system that energizes and enables them all, which is the belief in being a separate self that inhabits and is confronted by a world. A very nuanced and sophisticated view of paranormal phenomena zeroes in on the way the experiential arising of such things foregrounds the very mystery of this invisible membrane between subject and object, self and cosmos, ultimately showing how each is implicated with an, in the end, indivisible from the other.
"More fundamentally, his remarks carry the assumption that the language and thought world of physical science is the first, last, primary, and even the only domain for thinking and talking about such matters."
Yes!!! Science is just one view, and it does not see everything.
Thank you for this, Matt. It reminds me of Parmenides quote:
“It must be the case that what can be talked about and thought about exists; for it is possible for that to exist, but it is not possible for nothing to.”
The line that stopped me: there is no such thing as having no philosophy, only philosophy that is consciously engaged or unconsciously followed. That is the whole problem with how anomalous experience gets handled in mainstream discourse. The dismissals aren't coming from outside a metaphysical framework. They're coming from inside one that hasn't been examined. Thank you for this. It matters.
I’m glad this resonated, Meredith. And also not surprised, given the obvious resonances and parallels between what I say here and the vein you’re mining in Maze to Metanoia. Which I have been deeply enjoying, by the way.
Neil deGrasse Tyson has done a poor job of carrying on the legacy of Carl Sagan. He is close-minded, arrogant, and incredibly condescending. He is completely lacking in any sense of basic humility, self-criticism and is generally a complete turnoff. He lacks imagination and absolutely does not inspire his listeners to peruse the sciences. In effect, his messy, argumentative approach and hostile tone undermines his ability to effectively communicate with diverse audiences. He prioritizes the entertainment value of his public statements over scientific accuracy.
Sagan on the other hand was a poet and an intellectual that inspired wonder and a sense of endless possibility both in his books and lectures. Sagan was a passionate advocate for scientific literacy and the importance of communicating science to the public. Unlike Tyson, Sagan believed in making science accessible and engaging to a broad audience. His books, such as "The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark," continue to be highly regarded for their exploration of critical thinking, skepticism, and the value of scientific inquiry.
Sagan's enthusiasm for science and his ability to convey complex ideas in an understandable way inspired many individuals to pursue careers in science. His impact as a science communicator and educator continues to resonate with subsequent generations of scientists and science enthusiasts to this day. Sagan's legacy and his impact on science communication and public understanding of science remain significant even years after his passing. Sagan will be remembered for decades to come, Tyson on the other hand will not be and he has no one to blame but himself.
Thanks for sharing this Matt! 👍
Glad you liked it!
To push back on this slightly: there are dangers in indulging too much in this type if thinking specifically when it comes to the issue of UFOs and even the paranormal to some extent. The reason being is because there is so much propaganda and noise in these topics, particularly regarding UFOs.
It's extremely easy to get lost in a hall of mirrors and never get any answers; when there truly are answers to be had, you simply cannot discern where to find them, because you are now trapped in a belief system. Of course, this isn't always the case, but I maintain that it can be a dangerous topic to explore.
More broadly speaking, I think you make a worthwhile point.
Thank you. It is indeed interesting how the attempt to see around the corners of other people’s belief systems, and to become aware of the echo chamber-like nature of all such systems, can often become a belief system of its own, or else branch off into an unacknowledged one.
The easy way out, so to speak, is to become aware of the underlying belief system that energizes and enables them all, which is the belief in being a separate self that inhabits and is confronted by a world. A very nuanced and sophisticated view of paranormal phenomena zeroes in on the way the experiential arising of such things foregrounds the very mystery of this invisible membrane between subject and object, self and cosmos, ultimately showing how each is implicated with an, in the end, indivisible from the other.
"More fundamentally, his remarks carry the assumption that the language and thought world of physical science is the first, last, primary, and even the only domain for thinking and talking about such matters."
Yes!!! Science is just one view, and it does not see everything.
Thank you for this, Matt. It reminds me of Parmenides quote:
“It must be the case that what can be talked about and thought about exists; for it is possible for that to exist, but it is not possible for nothing to.”
Great read.
The line that stopped me: there is no such thing as having no philosophy, only philosophy that is consciously engaged or unconsciously followed. That is the whole problem with how anomalous experience gets handled in mainstream discourse. The dismissals aren't coming from outside a metaphysical framework. They're coming from inside one that hasn't been examined. Thank you for this. It matters.
I’m glad this resonated, Meredith. And also not surprised, given the obvious resonances and parallels between what I say here and the vein you’re mining in Maze to Metanoia. Which I have been deeply enjoying, by the way.
The scientist sits down for dinner with his wife, and says, “this table is realer than our love.” The wife leaves him the following morning.
Neil deGrasse Tyson has done a poor job of carrying on the legacy of Carl Sagan. He is close-minded, arrogant, and incredibly condescending. He is completely lacking in any sense of basic humility, self-criticism and is generally a complete turnoff. He lacks imagination and absolutely does not inspire his listeners to peruse the sciences. In effect, his messy, argumentative approach and hostile tone undermines his ability to effectively communicate with diverse audiences. He prioritizes the entertainment value of his public statements over scientific accuracy.
Sagan on the other hand was a poet and an intellectual that inspired wonder and a sense of endless possibility both in his books and lectures. Sagan was a passionate advocate for scientific literacy and the importance of communicating science to the public. Unlike Tyson, Sagan believed in making science accessible and engaging to a broad audience. His books, such as "The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark," continue to be highly regarded for their exploration of critical thinking, skepticism, and the value of scientific inquiry.
Sagan's enthusiasm for science and his ability to convey complex ideas in an understandable way inspired many individuals to pursue careers in science. His impact as a science communicator and educator continues to resonate with subsequent generations of scientists and science enthusiasts to this day. Sagan's legacy and his impact on science communication and public understanding of science remain significant even years after his passing. Sagan will be remembered for decades to come, Tyson on the other hand will not be and he has no one to blame but himself.
NDT on the NON-LOCAL UNIVERSE, Entanglement, and Philosophy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3j_5fwawJo
Why Neil deGrasse Tyson Is Wrong About Philosophy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yOIq8SLzTU
Anyone remember this cringe fest?
Bill Nye makes fun of Neil deGrasse Tyson's reply to Dawkins, making Lawrence Krauss glad https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0-jKmcNr_8