Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!zehntel!hplabs!hao!seismo!brl-tgr!gwyn
From: gwyn@brl-tgr.ARPA (Doug Gwyn )
Newsgroups: net.philosophy,net.sci
Subject: Re: Energy (originally Mind and Brain)
Message-ID: <3496@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 30-Jul-84 02:17:02 EDT
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.3496
Posted: Mon Jul 30 02:17:02 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 28-Jul-84 19:45:23 EDT
Organization: Ballistics Research Lab
Lines: 38

All right, time to get a few things straight.

I can see how if you believe that words and concepts denote nothing
and are arbitrary constructs of the human mind then you would grant
equal validity to anyone's use of a word.  Or, if you believe that
meaning comes from a process of social agreement, then you might
decide that the usage with the most adherents wins the vote.

However, if one believes that concepts are man's means of organizing
his perceptions of an objective reality, then words (labels for concepts)
must not be arbitrary.  The concept of "energy" has been made precise by
those who are tasked with investigating physical phenomena, the physicists.
This is not to say that physics "has all the answers", or is infallible,
or will not further refine its concepts.  Indeed, regular readers of
net.physics are aware that I am rather critical of many current trends
in physics.  However, knowledge is possible in spite of lack of
absolute certainty; how this is possible is a central question of
epistemology, to which only one philosopher has given a satisfactory
answer so far as I am aware.  (Most give up when they realize that
absolute certainty about the physical world is unrealizable.)

The important point with regard to the concept of "energy" is that the
physicists have made its (originally fuzzy) meaning much more precise
and powerful, while the mystics have contributed nothing of the sort to
the concept.  If one of the counter-arguers demonstrates that the
mystical idea denoted by their use of the word "energy" has a strong
enough meaning to be really useful in dealing with experience, then
that will enhance the validity of their concept.  In which case, if
their "energy" does not denote the same thing as the physicists',
indeed separate words are needed for these separate concepts.  I
strongly suspect, however, given the past dismal performance of the
field of philosophy, that they really have nothing specific in mind
when they talk about "spiritual energy", "psi energy", and so forth.

My original objection against Shirley Maclaine's use of the term was
that it smacks of an attempt to borrow legitimacy from a proper use
of the concept in order to enhance the prestige of her vague ideas.
Well, guys, you aren't getting away with it.  Comes the revolution!