On Rawlings, traditional knowledge, religion and science

Read Comments Comments (12)

• John Amponsah 12 years ago

  Kweku, many thanks for your comments, and thank you as well for the corrections you suggested. I concede on those points.
  
  The underlying idea, in my opinion is to point out the futility of seeking to "objectively" prove o ...
  read full comment

  Kweku, many thanks for your comments, and thank you as well for the corrections you suggested. I concede on those points.
  
  The underlying idea, in my opinion is to point out the futility of seeking to "objectively" prove or disprove religion or indigenous knowledge using materialistic science as a paradigm of reference because of the incongruity of their axiomatic bases or "starting points", as I referred to in the article.
  
  I also agree that indigenous knowledge in virtually every pre-modern human society (including European ones) included spiritual phenomena in their realms of possibility so what these pre-modern human societies considered to be knowledge and their means of engaging with such knowledge differed (and still differs) from that of the modern, materialistic science approach.
  
  Thanks. Your contribution is the kind I was hoping to witness in regard to this article.

  reply
• John Amponsah 12 years ago

  Excellent response, G.K Berko! I consider your response to be a very welcome contribution to this discussion, thank you. I shall now make a few comments on some of what you wrote about (your comments are in ‘[ ]’ while mi ...
  read full comment

  Excellent response, G.K Berko! I consider your response to be a very welcome contribution to this discussion, thank you. I shall now make a few comments on some of what you wrote about (your comments are in ‘[ ]’ while mine start with '-->'):
  
  [I, personally, welcome this topic for the very special reason that it could lead us all to appreciate and employ more critical thinking in most of what we discuss to find the best way forward as a country, and as individuals in pursuit of progressive lives. It opens the flood-gates of serious logical thinking. ]
  
  --> I agree. The very emotive and often non-critical nature of past attempts on this forum to discuss religion and science prompted me to adopt what I guess comes across as a dry, intellectual approach to writing the article in order to focus discussion efforts on sharing perspectives and opinions in a cogent manner. It is much easier (to me at least) to communicate thoughts when in discussion mode, where the emphasis is on understanding others’ opinions.
  
  [The fact that this topic, like many of its kind, often demands more than just one Article to adequately inform the reader, relieves many of us of the burden to fully respond to this article in one attempt. So, I will only begin with a few observations of my own.]
  
  --> Indeed! Even broaching the topic in a reasonable enough scope is not easy. However this is a topic of importance and relevance to just about everyone (if I can get away with making such a claim) so it is one that must be discussed. Discussions and sharing of perspectives can bring about mutual learning and further clarification of opinions and understandings on the subjects of religion and science in particular. If you will, perhaps you could write an article on the subject. I may also write more on this topic in future.
  
  [On the Author's reference to 'starting points', I strongly hold that the temporal variations in the emergence of 'starting points' for different groups and generations affect what the People formulate as an embodiment of their beliefs, be it material Science or otherwise. With the same temporal evolution comes the possibility of the same group changing in its perceptions and subsequently its beliefs on various systems.]
  
  --> I agree and will also include political and sociocultural interactions between human groups as a factor that strongly bears on the temporal variations in beliefs, opinions and thoughts, be they working hypotheses or precepts taken as “knowns”. Trade and warfare have contributed to significant interactions between human groups. These two forces have allowed for the interaction (a sort of ‘osmosis’ to borrow a term from science) of beliefs, ideas and cultural particulars of one cultural group to cross into another. This has been a significant part of the human process: human groups interacting with each other, exchanging ideas, influencing each other and such.
  
  Thanks

  reply
• Ugly Akufu Addo 12 years ago

  The man is GOD for those in UWR

  The man is GOD for those in UWR

  reply
• Ugly Akufu Addo 12 years ago

  K4 brought cocaine money for npp

  K4 brought cocaine money for npp

  reply
• Kwame 12 years ago

  Consciousness is the property of matter and in that sense the highest form of matter. Man becomes conscious because he or she is a product of society. Thus for a matter to be conscious biologically it must be a human being, a ...
  read full comment

  Consciousness is the property of matter and in that sense the highest form of matter. Man becomes conscious because he or she is a product of society. Thus for a matter to be conscious biologically it must be a human being, a being living in society. The concept spirituality is itself a product of society, thus spirituality can not be an abstract hanging somewhere in the world.
  The only form of matter that labour is man. Man labour in accordance with the knowledge he acquired from society, his own observations and skills. Man is said to be a negation of negation of nature because man does not perform labour in accordance with his biological definiteness, thus from birth to death man is thought how even to eat.
  Spirituality is in itself material either it has to do with the arts, the social sciences and natural science.
  Thus to ascribe spirituality to our illusions, which we created is like a mirage in which we do not find water. Spirituality is the property of man and that property to know what is good, bad, beautiful and ugly can not be stolen from him and given to any illusion.

  reply
• David M. Kabot Tembil 12 years ago

  I have been very impressed with the writing of John Amponsah, perhaps a professor who is so modest to indicate so. He write from the point advanced knowledge on a subject that is so abstract to many. I have not been able to c ...
  read full comment

  I have been very impressed with the writing of John Amponsah, perhaps a professor who is so modest to indicate so. He write from the point advanced knowledge on a subject that is so abstract to many. I have not been able to comprehend all what he wrote but the little I have understood leads me to comment as follws: The author writes starting with ownership of the material using his surname ANPONSAH defined from a tradition to start with. He is not a JOHN Khumalo, JOHN Adonkologo nor Brukuktu Brahini . HIS surname and Identity stands defined from his tribe village and family, dating back to a time he has no control over. And he writes with the first name John( a biblical name) or Jewish name ( He is not JOHN the Baptist, nor JOHN the apostle). But he is John most likely a Christian linking the TRADITION (ANPONSAH) HIS CHRISTIAN IDENTITY. The triple point of the author in his spiritual being ( which he certainly) coexisting in the intellectual individual where the organs, cells and muscles work precisely in scientific fashion to give meaning to empirical five senses in detecting the environment. We can use, emotions, sleep and dreaming to try to explain these a non-empirical property of a person in trying to link man to the Supernatural. In other words I want to say that author is a total embodiment of how all these three inter-play , with good reasons to justify Creation whether it be from Science, Religion or Tradition.
  
  I will now link the creation story in the Bible which as come to us from the Hebrew or Jewish Tradition but now bestowed to whole world. The Hindus of India and African Traditional Religionists ( Due apologies to late Rev. FaTHER DAMOAH) have their creation stories based on their traditions and some Scientific. but I shall limit the discussion of what I know from the book of GENESIS in the BIBLE>
  
  " In the beginning (time defined from negative infinity), God ( The supernatural consciousness) said , "LET THERE BE LIGHT"( A form of Energy to make life feasible via photosynthesis). Then the dual property of Light as WAVE and consisting of particles leads to age-old question. "THE EGG AND CHICKEN, WHICH IS OLDER "?. IS GOD THE SPIRIT, the embodiment of all Energies starting with Light?. The debate in a time stretching to Positive infinity.
  
  A man enters a restaurant to order CHICKEN, but forgets the name of the bird. Fortunately, he sees the occupant of the next table eating EGGS and calls out:
  
  "please bring me RICE PLUS half of the mother on an eggs".
  
  And yet the chicken is the Genesis of an Egg. Is there some intellect in EGG to hatch into a Chick ? Do we understand it as mere Energy to be provided by the layer or incubator or even with these chickens, there must be something spiritual?

  reply
• John Amponsah 12 years ago

  Thank you David. Interesting point of view, and interesting expression of another mind! I am always interested in how others think, especially when making an effort to do so, no matter how unique. Thanks

  Thank you David. Interesting point of view, and interesting expression of another mind! I am always interested in how others think, especially when making an effort to do so, no matter how unique. Thanks

  reply
• John Amponsah 12 years ago

  Kwame, your point of view interests me. So correct me if I am wrong. It seems that your fundamental assumption is that consciousness is the property of matter. From here, it seems you argue that man is made up of matter so ma ...
  read full comment

  Kwame, your point of view interests me. So correct me if I am wrong. It seems that your fundamental assumption is that consciousness is the property of matter. From here, it seems you argue that man is made up of matter so man can become conscious. That this consciousness is derived from being part of human society. From here you then state that spirituality is a product of society and therefore it is of material quality and not an abstract notion. Then, concrete manifestations of spirituality such as can be witnessed in the arts, the social sciences and the natural sciences is all the spirituality there is?
  
  If you will, can you kindly unpack your thinking some more? Specifically:
  
  1) Does your assumption that "consciousness is the property of matter" preclude the possibility of consciousness being associated with the immaterial?
  2) Do you even consider the possibility of the immaterial in your thinking? Just curious, to get a better understanding of your standpoint.
  3) Are you conflating the concepts of consciousness and spirituality or do you see them as separate? Further elaboration will help, especially if you can define your terms.
  3) What is your notion of "matter", since your post seems to imply that there are different forms, including higher and lower forms?
  
  Thanks

  reply
• Cano 12 years ago

  This is a piece of shit.....who can understand you? You must get your audience to understand you. It's pure crap!

  This is a piece of shit.....who can understand you? You must get your audience to understand you. It's pure crap!

  reply