[Krimel] Maybe we are confusing some terms here or something but the path of cessation winds its way through many lifetimes. Simply dying doesn't get you off the hook with them. Every time you die, you respawn and start over. It is a bit like life in my native Norrath. Isn't the Buddhist's long-term goal is to achieve perma-death. It's like in Norrath when Sony cancels your account and bans you from the game. Of course Buddhists have some pretentious sounding Sanskrit name for it and it's more like instead of banning you from the game they unplug the server.
Ron: I suppose the path to cessation may last one or many, I'm not sure it's specified but the belief, I believe, is the focus on the path, the process of preparation, the idea, method and intent of doing so, not the attainment of goals even of perma death. In this way, the goal is attained. To say that Buddhist have long term goals is not really capturing the full intent of Buddhism. [Krimel] I am a Taoist not a Buddhist so I would definitely agree that one should focus on The Way. But sometimes in our travels it is 'good' to reflect on where we have come from and to imagine where we are heading. Those imagining are part of the journey as well. As my favorite philosopher once said, "To everything there is a season and a time for every purpose under heaven." [Ron] I am finding that the MoQ is based on a similar method of inquirey, I think most of the criticism you recieve is based here. I think you project a certainty in the explaination of expereince and focus understanding within the realm of knowledge when the type of understanding, at least the kind I am speaking about, lies more in the inquiry. [Krimel] I think I get criticized because what I am saying over challenges some folks deeply felt convictions. I am not about to apologize for stating what I think as clearly as I can. And I think that some others would do well to focus and why they disagree. If they are unable to construct a reasoned argument perhaps they should consider the Value of their feelings. [Ron] When you define expereince in terms of physical processes, It sort of flies counter of the larger intent of pragmatism, that of the method of inquirey, challenging certainty radically in terms of value. In effect Pragmatism even questions it's own ascertations the ascertations of emprical physical explaination. [Krimel] I think our felt experience arises from physical processes both historically and immediately. We are shaped and molded by them. I see no value at all in pretending this isn't so or in ignoring it. In fact when we adopt James' functionalism we look at various processes and ask how they serve us in an evolutionary sense. Emotions clearly evolve to increase the probability of reproductive success. Rationality also evolved, some would say because it refines our emotional estimates. Others claim it is a form of sexual selection, like the tail feathers of birds of paradise. Chicks dig smart guys. Now that is the kind of interesting debate we are unlikely to have here. As I have said many times certainty was a casualty of the past century of inquiry. What you describe above as pragmatism is just about exactly what I think science is all about. It makes assumptions and then challenges them. It offers tentative truths but demands skepticism. Its Value is assessed through tasting its fruits. [Ron] I think this why Dave calls you a reductionist because to tend to focus on physical explanations. [Krimel] I think Dave calls me that because he doesn't know what else to say. He is too intent on rationalizing his feeling. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
