Art or Science?

[Ser10Rec1pr0]

I don't understand why the dichotomy art-science. ...

Eyes glaze over when I read accounts of what's art, what's science. Seems just another feeble effort at compartmentalizing; make things easier to discuss.

I've posted elsewhere on this board about the lengthy essay, "On the Epistemology of the Inexact Sciences" (https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/p ... /P1513.pdf) from 1958, in which authors argue that the assumed difference betw. the physical (exact) sciences & the social (inexact) sciences is one of degree, not principle. At the time of the essay, the social science "economics" recently had been "admitted" into the realm of the exact sciences.

According to authors, history (of which I've always taken for granted that philosophy was a branch) was a science: their example was 17th century ships-of-the-line. The authors insisted that all sciences had basically two features: an explanatory one & predictive one.

I suppose the question is does philosophy have these features.

[Jan Sand]

Function plays a dominant part in the difference between art and science. Science has a unity about it in which the patterns of science must be coherent with all the different sections of its general designation. The arts are patterns which are explored and created to affect the aesthetic and cultural sensibilities of humanity. Doubtless there are traditions in the various sectors that provide coherence but the regularities are of a rather different order than science. At the moment there are differences between the sciences of the larger areas such as astronomy and the areas of particle physics and these differences concern studies that attempt to bridge the gaps. Just in the last few days the behaviors of the smaller components of galaxies have been discovered to have relationships with the laws of quantum physics and this is fascinating as the beginning possibilities of providing a join in some instances of the two.

[Namelesss]

"Entertain: to hold within", to assimilate!
When the dualistic boundaries of Our egoic/thought 'selves' vanish in the Enlightenment of unconditional Love, one can be said to be assimilated (enter-tained) into the Whole.

Assimilate may be more apt and I might not disagree with your final assessment however here's the situation... You and me, and that duality is what creates this exchange of thought that has arisen.

There are those 'philosophers' (scholastics) who do not understand that 'thought' is perceived, just as everything else in existence.
For them, ignorantly misunderstanding the nature of 'thought/ego', there is the "hard problem" of body and mind (Chalmers, for one).

(T)Here is 'thought' to behold, from almost infinite Perspectives; probably a single 'proto-thought', that, from all Perspectives, displays all the various 'shades of thought' that has ever been thunk/perceived!

We can communicate like this because we have similar Perspectives of thought. If we cannot be on the same page, we are at least in the same book with the thoughts that we perceive.

No 'creates', but we are sharing Perspectives, Here! Now! *__-

Thought may have had something to do with the initial creation of duality but in our earthly situation thought is either the unifying or separating force that arises from any interaction. correct?r]

The very dualistic nature of 'thought' (Satan) is divisive! It never stops fragmenting that which is One! (Translates beautifully into biblical metaphor!)
That is why the bible warns us never to believe the thought/ego/feelings that we perceive! Not to believe that little red devil on our shoulder whispering sweet nothings (thoughts) in our ears!

[Jan Sand]

The Bible, of course, is a collection of thoughts. That it denies the worth off thought is an interesting and rather funny idea.

[jerlands]

Assimilate may be more apt and I might not disagree with your final assessment however here's the situation... You and me, and that duality is what

We can communicate like this because we have similar Perspectives of thought. If we cannot be on the same page, we are at least in the same book with the thoughts that we perceive.

No 'creates', but we are sharing Perspectives, Here! Now! *__-

Well, I see duality as the inverse of the same. A battery for instance. The difference in potential between the positive (+) and Negative (-) creates the potential for usable work. I think that analogy is applicable in human interaction in that you have one potential in relation to another potential (self and other) and that relationship creates thought (wind) like difference in temperature does. So maybe we should explore if thought is active, does it move?

The very dualistic nature of 'thought' (Satan) is divisive! It never stops fragmenting that which is One! (Translates beautifully into biblical metaphor!)
That is why the bible warns us never to believe the thought/ego/feelings that we perceive! Not to believe that little red devil on our shoulder whispering sweet nothings (thoughts) in our ears!

I don't know it isn't true that the notion we hold as Satan may be the actual cause for creation. It may have been something woke God up from rest and he simply turned on the lights to see what the issue was

[Jan Sand]

More likely it was Loki playing his usual tricks. Superior beings like God never get tired.

[Namelesss]

The Bible, of course, is a collection of thoughts. That it denies the worth off thought is an interesting and rather funny idea.

Rather like using logic to demonstrate the limitations of logic.
It is ego telling us not to believe ego! Ultimately, a rational argument.

[Namelesss]

We can communicate like this because we have similar Perspectives of thought. If we cannot be on the same page, we are at least in the same book with the thoughts that we perceive.

No 'creates', but we are sharing Perspectives, Here! Now! *__-

... maybe we should explore if thought is active, does it move?

God is unchanging, thus not anything ever 'moves'.

The very dualistic nature of 'thought' (Satan) is divisive! It never stops fragmenting that which is One! (Translates beautifully into biblical metaphor!)
That is why the bible warns us never to believe the thought/ego/feelings that we perceive! Not to believe that little red devil on our shoulder whispering sweet nothings (thoughts) in our ears!

I don't know it isn't true that the notion we hold as Satan may be the actual cause for creation.

If the Satan is thought/ego, then it can be said to be the 'creator' (of the appearance) of all 'different things'.

It may have been something woke God up from rest and he simply turned on the lights to see what the issue was

That's what I've been saying!!
All existence, ever, the Universe, is a 'lights on' for God, that We/God may Know Self!

[jerlands]

... maybe we should explore if thought is active, does it move?

God is unchanging, thus not anything ever 'moves'.

You're equating Actus Purus with man and which is yet a foregone conclusion. Creation was action through thought and I believe the question is whether or not creation is still active.

I don't know it isn't true that the notion we hold as Satan may be the actual cause for creation.

If the Satan is thought/ego, then it can be said to be the 'creator' (of the appearance) of all 'different things'.

The story of Satan as far as I know is he rebelled against God thinking himself superior and was cast down upon earth. What exactly that implies I'm not certain.

It may have been something woke God up from rest and he simply turned on the lights to see what the issue was

That's what I've been saying!!
All existence, ever, the Universe, is a 'lights on' for God, that We/God may Know Self!

That we may know self and be able to distinguish from the other.
.

[Jan Sand]

Satan, like God, like Mickey Mouse are all thoughts and obviously we have to acknowledge they require equivalent respect.

[Namelesss]

God is unchanging, thus not anything ever 'moves'.

You're equating Actus Purus with man and which is yet a foregone conclusion.

Not knowing what you mean by this, but I can tell you that you are misreading the poor term 'act' ('actus') as if there were motion involved.
Unless you see 'act' as 'becoming aware' of something.
The 'act' of Self Awareness is what existence is!
Not anything 'moves'.

Creation was action through thought and I believe the question is whether or not creation is still active.

So, if 'motion' is not possible, then your question is answered, creation is not possible and neither is 'action'.

If the Satan is thought/ego, then it can be said to be the 'creator' (of the appearance) of all 'different things'.

The story of Satan as far as I know is he rebelled against God thinking himself superior and was cast down upon earth. What exactly that implies I'm not certain.

There is a school of thought who thought that the best way to communicate deep truths was to couch them in 'daily drab'. A tale that can be taken literally by, perhaps, the vast majority, but speaks deeper truths to those who see deeper.
If you consider the literal reading of the 'Devil' story not to be literally intended, and look a bit deeper at the metaphor and symbolism, etc... if you squint just a bit, maybe you can see the parallel in what I have been saying.
It burns about the same amount of calories as denying. *__-

That's what I've been saying!!
All existence, ever, the Universe, is a 'lights on' for God, that We/God may Know Self!

That we may know self and be able to distinguish from the other.

"That We may Know Self by being able to distinguish one thing from another." - God's Ego
To Know Self! is to Know that there can be no 'other'.

Once again, schizophrenia is the fragmentation of that which is One, 'believing' the dualistic appearances of thought/ego/Satan!

[Namelesss]

Satan, like God, like Mickey Mouse are all thoughts and obviously we have to acknowledge they require equivalent respect.

Reality is ALL inclusive, why does anything require 'respect' while another doesn't?
Or is that an attempt to use sarcasm as a philosophical refutation?

[Jan Sand]

If nothing else, attempting to psychoanalyze a mythical being to make sense of actuality is something of an ego trip. Start smaller and then advance to larger possibilities. Try psychoanalyzing the average sympathies a spider might have for an entrapped fly and move on from there.

[Jan Sand]

Frankly, I sympathize more with Pogo than Mickey Mouse. But none of them partakes of much reality to consider them seriously.

[Namelesss]

Satan, like God, like Mickey Mouse are all thoughts and obviously we have to acknowledge they require equivalent respect.

You are right in that anything that you can write here is the manifestation of some thought, so anything that can be named are 'thought'.
There is that which transcends discriminatory, conditional 'thought/ego'.

"The nameless is the mother of all existence! The named is the mother of all things!" - Chuangtse