Walls don’t always block. They can funnel, intensifying the flow of the river.
In order to compete with religion for the favor of the powers that be, empiricism had to promise a vision of the future more attractive than what religion offered. So we have “progress.”
Or just plain out tell the natives they were wrong. Indeed, it did win the lion’s share of influence over time. Are we in heaven yet? Heaven on earth I mean. Progress is doing quite well at working on our death. Progress promised every day as heaven, a life of leisure and the ability to engage in only the most worthwhile pursuits as technology was supposed to free us from all lowly labor.
Progress has allowed us to be here in a virtual world and make friends with people we otherwise would not have met. So I think it had good points and bad points. I wouldn’t disagree that it had good points. This is just the critique part.
Where I feel it failed is that it rejected the world as it moved man at the time of its advent, and as it continues to move humanity even now. The world of the subjective is not available to public observation, direct observation at least, nor does it conform to the principles that allow easy mechanization. The reason science has failed at this is empiricism is dependent on the reality of a closed system for its own validity.
There has never been a person of faith without sin. There has never been an empiricist without bias. This would seem to be the rule rather than the exception, yes?
We (Native Hawaiians) were told to let go of our ancients. They are the expansion of the universe in its own expansive motion. To cling holds us back. I didn’t say that very well, but our ancients understood this movement. I would view that advice as bad, like telling someone not to cling to standing on the ground. The ground is holding you back from the freedom of falling. Don’t you want to fall?
I love falling. You won’t love the impact.
Your thoughts are welcome. Be well friends.