A very general overview of the scientific vs. psychadelic viewpoint.

[proto-pax]

Citta, I say science and nature is the same, because everything in life is in the end, Natural. Whether man has changed it or not.

-And for that reason alone, i hold nature in high esteem over any human endaveour.

How are these two thoughts compatible with one another?

 

[christian]

Who said they WERE compatible.... what are your thoughts, proto?? 8)

 

[proto-pax]

I think incompatible thoughts should eventually cause cognitive dissonance or else we are on a merry-go-round of a discussion where we waste everyone time. 8)

 

[christian]

I don't understand how my thoughts are incompatible. Ok, if you're analizing bits of what i'm saying , then you'll probably get such a conclusion. However, my statements are written "in context of the whole", and meant to be interpreted as such, rather than overanalised and dissected like a lab rat... .8)

-Let me explain. Everything is natural, in the end. But when i say natural, i usually mean "naturally occuring", even if mans altering of it can be also interpreted as natural. I have thus re-edited my reply to Citta on the last paragraph, with indications as to "original" natural, as naturally occurins, etc. Hope this clarifies ant misunderstandings or incompatabilities.

 

[endlessness]

I guess the point to dissect thoughts (yours or anybody else's) and show inconsistencies/flaws is that it permits growth. If you recognize your own inconsistencies, you can use it as an opportunity for developing your own ideas, which in turn will make the whole discussion grow too. It is not about identifying with one or another position, all positions are debatable and open to scrutiny and constructive criticism.

For some reason throughout this thread I've seen many good posts that could have served you, but you seem to constantly deny/avoid them, as if recognizing a fault in your arguments would question you as a person. But you can be sure that is not what people are about here, we honestly want to potentiate each other's growth, and the criticism is at arguments/opinions, not a personal offense.

I highly suggest you read things again and see if there isnt something in the constructive criticisms that you can use as source of self reflection and development

 

[christian]

I guess the point to dissect thoughts (yours or anybody else's) and show inconsistencies/flaws is that it permits growth. If you recognize your own inconsistencies, you can use it as an opportunity for developing your own ideas, which in turn will make the whole discussion grow too. It is not about identifying with one or another position, all positions are debatable and open to scrutiny and constructive criticism.

For some reason throughout this thread I've seen many good posts that could have served you, but you seem to constantly deny/avoid them, as if recognizing a fault in your arguments would question you as a person. But you can be sure that is not what people are about here, we honestly want to potentiate each other's growth, and the criticism is at arguments/opinions, not a personal offense.

I highly suggest you read things again and see if there isnt something in the constructive criticisms that you can use as source of self reflection and development

-AHH, you beat me to it endlessness. i have edited my last response to explain myself . hope it helps.

 

[christian]

--I'm all for living and enjoying the benefits of science, but no matter how pure a chemical can be made, i'll always respect the fact that that "chemical" came from nature in the first place.

-And for that reason alone, i hold "original" nature in high esteem over any human endaveoured twist on "new" nature.[/quote]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--The point i try to make is that through science people can learn and understand a lot about the importance of nature, for example by making strong medicines from it. However without nature, nothing exists.
-so, naturally occuring nature always rules the roost IMO, because without it, science wouldn't exist, nor would we...

 

[proto-pax]

You said the exact same thing with different words.



The exact sequence of words in your post changed, but the message didn't.



See how there is no difference in the above sentences? No matter what your posts say, you didn't change anything.

We are on the merry-go-round!

 

[christian]

Well then perhaps you have the knowledge to steer the merry go round into a roller coaster, or big dipper?!