NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/sci/philosop/meta/2857

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-24 | 12.6 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!portal!cup.portal.com!Tagi
From: [e-mail] (Thyagi Morgoth NagaSiva)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: MINDWALKING Buddhists, oh my!
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 92 10:18:52 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
References: <[e-mail]>
  <[e-mail]>
Lines: 318

9212.24 e.v.

[Please cc responses to this post to my email, as I'll be out of town for
 a week or so and don't know if my server will retain them.  Thanks.]


Well, at LEAST now we've heard from the Objectivists. ;>
Here's my critique of Mr. Grossman's words:


Stephen Grossman writes:

The refusal to connect mind (ie, reason) to reality results in MTV, game
shows, Madonna, drug addiction, hangovers, and Nehru jackets. Another result
is Buddhism or any mysticism. I do note, however, that sticking your finger in-
to an electric outlet might mystically connect one to all the electrons in the
Universe.


Response:

Well, this pomposity with regard to some of the most profound metaphysical
speculation is to be expected.  Dismissing Buddhism, one of the worlds
most popular and peaceful religions, as 'refusing to connect mind to
reality' shows a distinct lack of understanding regarding its depth and
character, especially the work of its major philosophers.

Mysticism, on the other hand, is more of a 'science of the mind' than
modern Science.  Mysticism involves more directly a 'connecting of mind
to reality' than any other activity.  Here again, it seems that your
ideas are quite limited to Ayn Rand and objectivist speculation.

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against Rand or such ideas, yet the
way you speak about them in your post reminds me very much of rabid
Christian preachers trying to convert through hysteria.  If anything
smacks of removing the connection of thought from mouth, this does.
I hope to show why below.


Stephen:

Your concern with "flowing movement" (what is an unflowing movement?)
splits the Universe into movement and permanence, thus breaking the wholeness
you seek. See Rand for the importance of "existence is identity." Parmenides
recognized that existence is full with his "plenum." You can choose any limit
like and you will find something there. Existence is: all of the things it is,
as Peikoff recognized. Unbrokenness exists and you can study it. But broken-
ness also exists and you can study that. Everything exists equally, brokenness
and unbrokenness.


Response:

This much is well known among mystics, including Buddhists.  You might have
taken it from any of the tomes which you seem to despise so heatedly.


Stephen:

These is no metaphysical privilege, with. eg, unbrokenness
being metaphysically superior to brokenness. Choose your concerns, study them,
and stay within their limits. Make judgements relative to that, and no other
context. Your judgements will be contextually absolute. And your contexts will
be, not subjective, but based in reality.


Response:

Here I think you may have overstated.  Why is a subjective evaluation, made
with logic and in the context of strict observation, somehow NOT 'based
in reality'?  By your words here it sounds as if one can describe
absolute truth through the glorious application of empiricism and reason.
If this is what you mean, I think you are mistaken.


Stephen:

If you want to empty your mind and focus on the veins of a leaf, you will
discover something. If you want to use a rational philosophy, you will discover
something else.


Response:

With this I agree.


Stephen:

Science exists only if philosophy permits it. And science exists in a
particular form depending on the philosophy which justifies it: Aristotle,
rationalism, empiricism, phenomenology, pragmatism, Objectivism, etc.


Response:

I think that Science exists regardless of any philosophy to 'permit it'.
I do agree that philosophy creates science, but I don't think you meant
by your words what I mean here.  Science is a means of coming to knowledge.
Philosophy is a method of breaking down root ideas and values and comparing
them.  Philosophy critiques, questions, analyzes.  Science examines,
postulates, tests and conjectures.  The two are related, of course, but
neither, as you put it above, has a necessary 'privelege'; a position
of absolute source with relation to the other.  They create one another,
and the list of 'isms' which you give above is only a subset of useful
approaches to doing science.  I note here that you capitalize
'Objectivism' but not the others.  Care to explain this?


Stephen:

Objectively,
the consistency between new physics and mysticism merely means that
Kant, the leading modern philosopher, has succeeded in his stated task in de-
science (as it threatened religious ethics).


Response:

This is true, depending upon what you mean by 'objectively'.  Yes, from
the position of one who sees the world in terms of objects, of surfaces
and quantifiable units of energy, Kant and the 'subjectivists', if you
will, have created a system of thought which seems to destroy knowledge
of the real.

If you mean by 'objectively' the equivalent of 'unbiased' (by subjectivity,
let's say), then this statement is blatantly false.

Kant and the subjectivists simply have a different approach to knowledge.
It is neither superior nor inferior.  It DOES support science, but it
doesn't support OBJECTIVIST science very well.  It is not religious
ethics which prevents the use of objectivist terminology and study, it
is a difference in PERSPECTIVE.  This point, about perspective, is so
important that Bohm included it in his book and Will i am quoted it.
(cf. the 'aquarium model').

Mysticism is subjectivist science, pure and simple.  The terminology and
study are different in that they focus INWARDLY, at the subjective
realm, deriving principles and theories and scientific experiments
which support this perspective.  Kant didn't deconstruct science, he
supported an ancient tradition of science which objectivists, in their
fervor, were overlooking.  Neither Kant nor Rand is 'right'.  They
are simply different.


Stephen:

Science, interpreted by Buddhism,
will yield an application of Buddhism. Science, viewed thru Aristotle or Rand,
will yield an application of Aristotle or Rand. There is no epistemological
privilege! Mysticism will yield certain results but the knowledge to provide
food, shelter, clothing, political rights, and self-esteem will not be among
them. See the history of India. Western physics may not permit transcendental
masterbation but you can build machines to lighten our daily load and extend
our health and longevity.


Response:

Here you begin your most blatant rants and raves.  Science is not owned
by the West.  Science, at its base, is a system of learning.  Cultures
throughout the world have developed countless sciences and many of these
have focussed inwardly.  Buddhism, in its core, IS Science.  It does
not 'interpret' the Science of the West and then apply it to get
knowledge, it IS a system of deriving knowledge, and more importantly,
AWARENESS.

I do agree that subjectivist scientists may find value in objectivist
sciences.  The same is true in reverse, of course, though not many
of today's 'modern scientists' can emerge from their entrenchment long
enough to really understand this.

Yes, with regard to the physical world and the manipulation of this,
modern Science has a lot to offer.  Physical technology makes possible
the shaping of the world around us within certain given limitations.
However, mental technologies make possible the shaping of THE WORLD
WITHIN US.  We can apply the technologies of the subjective world
in order to deal with the same problems.


Examples:

Food.
Objective: Allows us to acquire it and maintain a constant supply,
given renewable resources.

Subjective: Allows us to process food more efficiently, surviving
on less than would otherwise be possible.


Shelter/clothing.
Objective: Allows us to create it and maintain it despite very
harsh conditions.

Subjective: Allows us to withstand both harsh conditions and the
variation in environmental stressors.


Political rights.
Objective: Allows us to create and maintain a system of social
interaction so as to maximize individual freedoms while preserving
equable standards of security.

Subjective: Allows us to work with the current form of said system
as a process of social change and self-discovery (cf. Ghandi/karma yoga).


Self-esteem.
Objective:  Allows us to apply ourselves within society, create new
technologies and products, and generally express ourselves in the
discovery of our uniqueness.

Subjective: Allows us to delve deeply into ourselves, exploring and
maximizing the richness and beauty of human experience.


Neither is more important.  One supports the other and gives the other
value.  In the realms of health and enjoyment it has long been known
that mystical systems extend the lifespan and more importantly
the ENJOYMENT of that life.  Comfort does not always do this.  At
a certain point comfort becomes detrimental both to our health and
well-being.



Stephen:

>implicate order is particularly suitable for the understanding of such

I'm guessing but "implicate order" seems another term for Plato's Forms,
a supernatural realm oft dissolved in the history of Western philosophy.


Response:

I think that the 'implicate order' is quite a complex idea which has
been the focus of many important books in modern philosophy.  Perhaps
someone could post something from one of these books detailing precisely
what is meant in this excerpt?

I don't understand what you mean here Stephen by 'oft dissolved in the
history of Western philosophy'.  I suspect you mean that it has somehow
been 'proven incorrect' or something similar.  If you do mean this, I
think that you may have abandoned a very meaningful model (Plato's).


Stephen:

Your
consciousness of existence is not existence. Eg, wisdom is a state of cons-
ciousness, not the goddess Athena living on Mt. Olympus. Your wishes are not
real but, instead, dwell inside your consciousness of existence.


Response:

Note the use here of the word 'real'.  I have been focussing on this
in sci.virtual-worlds with the same intent.  What can you mean by this,
except that it does not in some way exist?  Yet the words you
use to describe it are contradictory.  How can something which isn't
'real' dwell ANYWHERE?

I suspect that you imply here that objects of imagination are not
'real'.  This is a meaningless statement.  It is more meaningful and
fruitful, in my opinion, to say that it does not have the same KIND
of reality.  It doesn't have PHYSICAL reality, for example.


Stephen:

Western philosophy has dis-integrated into postmodernism and so many seek
wholeness in a teeny, tiny part of their consciousness of existence. They are
ready for drugs, disco, Democrats, and THE DEVIL. (Once again, I'm sorry)

Try Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism before permanently surrendering
your mind to the harsh joys of mysticism and bathing in the Ganges.


Response:

I'm fascinated by the language I hear from modern 'philosophers'.  It
escapes me just what is meant by 'postmodernism', for example, in this
post.  I've been called a 'deconstructionalist' and other less flowery
names and yet I have no idea what is meant or implied by these terms.

I agree that Western philosophy has disintegrated.  I also agree that
many people seek 'wholeness' in small areas of experience.  I'm sure
that some people hope to find it in the things you mention.  I also
think that there are many additional items we could add to that list
with which you may not agree.

Particle physics, for example.  What has the exploration of the
elements of physical energy added to our knowledge regarding
food, shelter, politics or self-esteem?  How do you think that
that this compares to what it has yielded to date in terms
of human suffering?

I'm sure we could argue this way about every item on the list (and
a few besides).  Would that be relevant to the topic at hand?
Perhaps.

Mysticism is not necessarily about 'surrending your mind'.  Quite
alot of it is connected with very complex speculation and the analysis
of perceived events in the subjective realm.  Reason is not seen
as an OBSTACLE except as it stands between us and truth, which,
I think, is far beyond the bounds of reason to produce.

I don't want to give the impression that reason cannot be used to
DISCOVER truth.  I think it can.  But I think that once this truth
IS discovered, reason may stand like a barrier between us and the
truth we've found.  When it does this, it is time to abandon it
if we wish to experience that 'wholeness', that 'reality' which
we've struggled so long and hard to encounter.


Wishing you the best during this holy season of Darkness,

Thyagi