Re: Trust (not fear: Sparrow)
Posted by Sparrow on Feb 09, 2002 at 23:21
28.c.arbros.nb.net (209.161.68.145)Re: Trust (not fear: Sparrow) (Eudaemonic Pie)
E.Pie writes (from below):
Trust
Fair enough to look at fear. I agree with you that fear is a huge item.
I say this. I say that if we remove "fear" as the prime-key to our index of human knowledge, then we can keep all our knowledge under a better prime-key, namely, trust. Fear becomes secondary; fear is a subset of trust; fear is a healthy and measured function of distrust, a distrust of what cannot be shown or demonstrated as trustworthy in the first place. Trust, not fear, is why scientists demand such exacting methods of study; and trust, not fear, is why scientists demand the most brutal and rigorous forms of peer review (not trusting mere ‘authorities'). Religionists have no such equivalents. Religionists prey on fear without returning to you any self-critical and objective measures for how to distrust religion. Every good scientist bar none publishes his/her findings withing a larger context of published uncertainties. Religion doesn't.
But, howcomesomever! -- Trust is ill-placed if the person/system being trusted has no integrity. Religious systems have always been open to exploitation. The Trust is no better than the "Trusted"....That's what my (earlier-mentioned) paper is about -- Integrity. (Unfortunately, the attorneys and the editor are arguing against my use of "scientific integrity" as a Keyword. I'll go another round with them over that.) The AMA and allied organizations are highly selective about what they promulgate and that, hypocritically. [E.g.: I practice almost 100% pediatrics and learning disability remediation. The AMA, etc. rightly suggest that research is needed to prove that perceptual and visual therapy help LD kids, but insist on Level I evidence (large, randomized, double-blinded studies). That indeed, would be ideal. Yet, Walter A. Brown, in his Sci American article in Jan. 1998 titled "Placebo Power", cites a government study that says that only 20% of currently used medical methods have been adequately proven.] Where's the integrity? What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, I say.
This is not to get into a left turn over Placebos, guyz 'n galz. The topic is Fear and Trust.
(Ed. Note: Attempting to stay objective, he adds:)
Trust demands integrity. Integrity implies "truth-worthiness". Where do we find a Person of truth and integrity worthy of our Trust so that we do not Fear?
I certainly can't prove trust formally (any better than to point at science as a whole). I don't even want to try to "prove" trust (or free-will, blah, blah, blah). Trust is an epigenetic sense. It's like love. You either have it or you don't. So, in my experience, in real life, in commonsense, and in science, fear is never a stand alone variable. Trust. And in science, it's measured-trust which always exists in a context of uncertainty (not fear) ....Take it away ...
Love is a decision, based in a relationship between the Lover and the Beloved. It is not a feeling. It follows no natural laws, as does Science. It is most certainly a time-tested quality, and may exist in supernatural realms.
The failure or falsity of any Lover/Beloved encounter does not belie the nature and validity of Love, it merely demonstrates that Love can be falsified, and that people find value in doing so. Whether or not they do that, ultimately, depends on their Integrity and their Trustworthiness, which brings us back to the observation that our Trust can rest solidly only upon the shoulders of one of great and known Integrity.
Where do we find a Person who can love infinitely and unconditionally, who is of indubitable integrity, Truth-worthy and trustworthy? If we can find that Person, perhaps we can surrender (within reason) our Fear....
Your ball...
Follow Ups:
- Love Follows Natural Laws Eudaemonic Pie 10/2 04:59 (1)
- Well choke me with a Pirogy, why don't cha? Sparrow 11/2 09:41 (0)