Truth Translation

/ Cosmology Etc. Sentience & Semiotics /

Science and religion overlap in many areas: many unexamined areas: maybe even un-examinable.

Right there, for example: un-examinable. Science assumes that experience is examinable, explainable: in theory if not in complete fact. If we don’t get it, we could get it: if only we were a little bit smarter, had a little bit more technique, had one or two more facts to work with. Could human intelligence have evolved if that were not the case? Doesn’t experience have to be mappable, at least in theory? Could we have survived this long if we were altogether off base?

Science, it must be said, some scientists, are aware of this: this incompleteness in our ur-map. Actually, it’s an old idea: old as the classics anyway: mathematicians have long understood that reason cannot develop without a set of axioms: un-examinable things assumed to be true. (The logic may work whether or not the axioms are true!)

OK, pk, where’s the religion part?

Here. Monotheisms assume, assume without proof, that communication is possible between the deity and the people. We all grow up with God talking to Adam, God talking to Abraham, God talking to Moses: or Allah talking to Mohammed … And Adam and Abraham and Moses … and Jesus, and you and me, we get it. We’re speaking the same language! We’re speaking the same language in a universe mappable by that language: the grammar, the vocabulary, if not complete, is complete enough for communication to take place. We’re not monkeys typing gibberish, alive by accident.

Christian monotheism complicates this picture. (My own Christianity complicates this picture.) Uh, so does Judaism: God talks to Adam; Adam does not get it! or there would have been no fall. Eve does not get it: second-hand anyway. God talks to Moses: the Jews do not get it. They there go, casting and worshipping golden idols.

Skip to me. God talked to Jesus, Jesus talked to Peter … to St. Francis … to Ivan Illich (and Illich to me). Christians do not get it, and neither do nearly all of the rest of us. Partly, we are prevented, by sabotage not unlike the rabbis at the Temple of Solomon not getting it when Jesus had a fit and spilled the money from the money tables.
ugh, editing makes the prose jerky.

So: there’s more than one way not to get something. If I explain Shakespeare’s sonnets, cybernetically, as a group, to the cat, the cat doesn’t get it, it doesn’t matter how well chosen my diction. I don’t know how to explain space travel to a fish, I don’t think Jesus or Newton could either, not even Darwin. (Notice, these are thought experiments: I haven’t actually tried explaining anything to the cat or the fish.) (There are assumptions, unprovable, always, stacks of assumptions.) (The bulk of the public always assumes that the bulk of the assumptions have been proved!)

Jesus overturning the money tables I propose could be translated, at least in part, to be saying, Fraud in the house of God doesn’t wash.

Don’t lose track: we’re talking about science and religion: we’re talking about assumptions, axioms, and now we’re also talking about fraud: where a natural inability is enforced by a coercive political power: it doesn’t matter what the natural child might understand if the child is forced to go to a school determined to convince that the universe is what major advertisers want it to be. In other words: if God tells Moses and Moses tells Jesus and Jesus is crucified, interrrupted, silence, then Peter and Paul get to write God’s bible in his place, the police jailing anyone who sees or at least who says he sees the illegitimacy of fraud, the endorsement checks from AT&T addressed to the enforcers, not to the rational skeptics.

It’s the nature of the temple to crucify Jesus, pick up the money tables, pick up the money, and go right on with the fraud, with all the frauds, monopolizing resources.

So: Christians say that God wrote a bible. Christians say that they have this bible. Close reading shows that it’s overwhelmingly mistakes, mis-hearings, misspellings … outright lies, forgeries …
Christians say that they know how to read this bible, that they are competent to read it, to understand it, to teach it. And the schools (and the media …) coerce attendance at rituals that (pretend to) affirm these abilities. The school does not field teachers that say we don’t know our ass from our elbow, the universities do not salt the society with professors who say This is all hooey: and no one would tolerate one sentence of it if it weren’t.

A quote just floated into my head:

That can’t be right, that makes too much sense.

Help me remember who said that: a physicist, one of the old classical physicists trying to get a handle on quantum reality

God sends the message, we don’t get the message. (We are also sometimes prevented from getting the message, by people who have a vested interest in our deafness.) Never mind God, too ambiguous a concept anyway: rephrase that: Truth sends the message: nature, reality … Evolution, the possibility of development, of improvement, of progress sends the message: we don’t get the message. (Neither do we keep accurate accounts of our many sabotages: the Temple has no record of its role in the crucifixion.) (The US knows of but doesn’t harp on its genocides … And if you want to be hired at six figures, don’t point it out to anyone.)

initial scribble:
is truth translatable? untranslatable, incomprehensible: religious will never stand still for any real divine message, No: we cannot be budged from our assumed monopoly on the truth. morons in the majority think it’s their natural born right to understand important truth: relativity? quantum reality? come on, the geniuses only understand parts of it; and the schools will never permit clear mapping: clarity would displace the majority from their majority hold on thought.

Cosmology Etc. Sentience & Semiotics

About pk

Seems to me that some modicum of honesty is requisite to intelligence. If we look in the mirror and see not kleptocrats but Christians, we’re still in the same old trouble.
This entry was posted in cosmo, sentience semiotics. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s