Spirituality and Human Development

I mentioned that around the age of 10, I formed serious misgivings regarding the nature of multiplication. To my way of thinking, even at that young age, a comprehensive explanation required a qualitative - as well as quantitative - aspect. However - quite literally - the qualitative dimension was effectively removed from conventional interpretation. And this proved far from a passing concern. In fact I spend some considerable time thereafter in the attempt to "capture" the qualitative dimension. Thus to focus clearly on this missing aspect, I considered a square with side of 1 unit (i.e. expressed in 1-dimensional terms). The area of the square is then given as 1 square unit (i.e. now expressed in a 2-dimensional manner). Therefore, though the quantitative result has remained unchanged as 1, clearly a qualitative dimensional change has taken place.   1 2 thereby represents the quantity of 1 (expressed in 2-dimensional units). Then as all real number quantit...

As stated in the last blog entry, I see a comprehensive science as consisting of 3 distinct aspects, which for convenience can be named Type 1, Type 2 and Type 3. Type 1 would correspond to the conventional scientific approach representing the analytic (quantitative) extreme to the interpretation of reality. Its fundamental feature is that it is of a linear (1-dimensional) nature. This means that all relationships are rationally interpreted within single isolated polar reference frames. In particular the (external) objective is abstracted from the (internal) subjective aspect; and the (individual) parts are abstracted from the (collective) whole. Thus with Type 1 science, we have the reduction of subjective interpretation to objective explanation; equally we have the reduction of the whole (in any context) to parts. By contrast Type 2 represents the holistic (qualitative) extreme to interpretation, which is all but unrecognised ...

I completed recently the first part of Richard Dawkins' Biography "An Appetite for Wonder: The Making of a Scientist: a memoir". In fact - due to its ready availability in my local library - I had read the 2nd part "Brief Candle in the Dark" earlier. In many way I found the first part more interesting as it provided insight into how Dawkins  came to adopt his particular view of science. Though some might describe his earlier life in Africa as idyllic, I would not see it that way. Certainly it provided a range of interesting experiences, but it seems to me have been a somewhat unsettled and lonely existence. This was compounded by the fact that Dawkins comes across as an unusually sensitive child with a very trusting nature. And this trust was severely tested as he tried to adapt to the many uncertainties of his world. It is very revealing in this context that Dawkins frequently admonishes his younger self for his "childhood gullibility"...