No problems with the nudge nudge Twir…we do that sort of thing often here. And, rather than deconstruct and project upon your original emoticon’s meaning, I gave a ‘straight’ response.
“Returning you to your actual thread, with apologies ...” – T No offense taken at all…so far, even though not fully acclimated to our style here, no faux pas have been committed as I see it. Although it does appear that a bit of your personal style includes being a tad bit apologetic. And, yes, Buddhist philosophy in general far transcends the likes of Descartes. At least here, IF one posts now and then, threads do not ‘close’. “…Have you (or has anyone else here) any thoughts to offer on what I said in message #79 of that thread about a "non-dogmatic progressive understanding of the mind" perhaps necessarily resembling a religion, and certainly not necessarily resembling a science?...” – T Well, now that you ask, yes…many thoughts…most of which will be exposed in due time. Quickly, even though Sam’s presentation appeared to be quite disjointed and inconsistent let alone not based on personal experience, he did make a few, to me, obvious points. Yet, overall he seemed to be more interested in writing a commercial and slightly provocative piece for the magazine as most are want to do rather than try to explore either tried and true or new ground… resulting in a mishmash. Of course, this is not uncommon with him. Again, more directly to your questions, when it comes to a theory of mind, there will be axioms or tenets. This would be a given, yes? And, to be accepted in today’s marketplace, it would have to be scientific too, no? In addition, it would have to be integral in nature, including the all and everything…and that means religion too, no? To me, I agree that it is a radical notion however, I further suggest it has already occurred. . . come into being as you say. In addition, such a philosophy would have to include processes as well as cycles. Perhaps this is all too obvious to me and we will need to go much more slowly. I almost hesitate to do so, having bent the eyes and ears of those here in such matters over the years countless times already, however, since to me, there is nothing more important for humanity, we no doubt will traverse such paths again and again. “How do you answer Dr. Johnson's "I refute it thus!"? (Kicking a stone.)” – T In a similar way as countless before have, one of which can be found here: http://www.mindspring.com/~boba4/TreeFall.htm On Jan 14, 3:59 pm, Twirlip <[email protected]> wrote: > On Jan 14, 11:48 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I assumed all would read the whole article, my apologies. > > I eventually did (I'm fine with long articles,and I'm often 'guilty' > of them myself), but I started replying to bits of it long before I > got to the end, having no reason to think that this would cause any > problem.
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
