NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/sci/philosop/meta/2876

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-31 | 3.4 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!gossip.pyramid.com!pyramid!pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com!pcollac
From: [e-mail] (Paul Collacchi)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: MINDWALK - An exercise in Passionate Thought
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 31 Dec 92 23:50:03 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Paul Collacchi)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Pyramid Technologies, Mt. View, California.
Lines: 55

In article <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail] (Stephen F. Schaffner) writes:
|> In article <[e-mail]>,
|> [e-mail] (Leo Smith) writes:
|>
|> |> Randall, How can you assert that a model is reality?
|> |>
|> |> There are not elementary particles. There IS a model which accords
|> |> well with observation of some obscure and arcane aspects of atomic
|> |> physics that features concepts that are given the name 'elementary
|> |> particles'. But their existence is not of the same order as you or I
|> |> or the world we live in.
|>
|>
|> It seems to me that you make one true and one false statement above.  It
|> is of course true that models are not reality, being at best but
|> imperfect descriptions of what is (or may be) there.  The falsehood
|> is that in talking about people, or "the world we live in" you're
|> not using models; "person" or "human being" is just as much a
|> construct as "elementary particle" or "electron".  There are
|> differences between these concepts, to be sure.

Nice point.  Also, to tie this thread back into its mystical aspect, its
fair to say that to certain mystics the notion "I" is alleged to have
as much "reality" as an "electron" might have for Leo.  Said mystic
would assert that this "I" is an illusion,  a construct that arises out
of certain egoic mental-energies and gives the illusion of a center to
"consciousness."  Anyone who has spent the least amount of time in
meditation will understand that direct experience is non-verbal and the
notion "I am" is merely a thought just like any other thought that
arises in the sphere of awareness.  The one little mystical poem that I
always seem to remember is,
"We sit together, the mountain and me, 'til only the mountain remains."

In a manner of speaking, stripping away the veils of this illusion to
uncover the underlying (Buddha) nature is one way of trying to express the core
of certain Buddhist teachings, and actually most "mystical" teachings,
even Western ones, have a model very similar to this and their own fancy
word to describe the ultimate underlying state or reality -- Nirvana,
Atman, Bramin, Tao, "the Father", etc.  Judaism adds a twist by using a
word, Yahweh, which kind of means something like, that for which there
is no word.

It was nicely stated before that mysticism relies on direct experience
rather than doctrine. Lao Tse says very beautifully, "The Tao that can
be told is not the Eternal Tao, the Name that can be Named is not the
Eternal Name."  So talking about it, or thinking about what it might
mean, is not implied to be a substitute for "it", just as quantum
physicists were forced to admit that
they were no longer able to deal with "it" (reality) directly but were
forced to settle for its appearance in an observation space.

Paul Collacchi