On 9/8/10 1:47 PM, "MarshaV" <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Dave, > > Seems to me you've mentioned having an understanding of Buddhism. [Dave] No not really. I've read several books about Buddha and Buddhism. However since the most basic precept of Buddhism is that it cannot be understood unless one experiences it through long term practice under the guidance of a adept teacher, should not anything written about the subject be, just as or more suspect, than any claim of science? >So I meant > that things, like photons, chairs, particles spin, are thought to have > inherent existence, > to have their own being, their own individual independence, rather than being > an aspect of > interdependent processes. I'm neither a scientist nor a Buddhist, so forgive > the inadequacy > of my explanation. Can a photon be analyzed and manipulated separately from > its causes > and conditions? Is the mass of a photon other than conceptually constructed?
[Dave] Baking a cake is an interdependent process of ingredients, heat, and time. Can you measure a cup of flour separately from the sugar? Does it usually make any difference that water necessary for the cake is dependent on a water system built and maintained through your payments and taxes? If the water commissioner is a Republican is the cake more likely to fall? If it does fall is that just a figment of your imagination? Is the cake real? See how absurd this kind of thinking can become? It's called "lumping". Mystic "oneness" is the most extreme kind of lumping. Everything is dependent/interrelated with everything else. There is no reality that you can know except by finding a guru or a philosopher to lead you down the path to enlightenment or insanity. They're both the same you know. Pirsig said so. I know DMB is not your best buds but read his response to my posting and you will see the logical but equally absurd extension of James and Pirsig's work coming to the same conclusion. There is no reality except the one you make up for yourself, all views are equally good, except those made up by scientists and priests. The value of this is approach is that it marries romantic quality neutered of spirit and faith with classic quality neutered of reason and rationality. We are left with rhetoric and sophistry which about sums up the current state of the philosophic enterprise. Is their any doubt why most Americans are highly skeptical of all systems of philosophy? > If causes and conditions also have causes and conditions that also have causes > and conditions what is lost in creating a false boundary to confine a photon >to something definable and analyzable. Can a photon be analyzed meaningfully >after such a dissection. Do scientists ask these questions? Do they factor >the missing information into experiments? What changes when it is understood >that a photon is a static pattern of value? [Dave] Nothing according to Pirsig. The data are the data. And scientists are in the business of digging for data. Where the problems arise is when either scientists or philosophers try to "interpret" the data and its consequences on the usually several collective, competing philosophic views of reality. Dave > 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/md/archives.html 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/md/archives.html
