I'd love to hear Dawkins, Dennett and Hitchens comment on this book. In fact,
I'l love to hear Krimel comment on this book. But I'm premature and only to
page 67. Maybe there will be scientific redemption and resurrection somewhere
in future chapters.
On Oct 11, 2010, at 8:58 AM, MarshaV wrote:
>
> OMG! What a book! Science, as it as been presented to me up through even
> last week, lay before me beaten to an unrecognizable bloody pulp that stopped
> breathing an hour ago. Oh my... Oh my... But, being pragmatic and the
> fact that I like, no love listening to Beethoven's Ninth Symphony on my iPod,
> I run to get a box of bandaids.
>
>
>
>
> On Oct 11, 2010, at 5:07 AM, MarshaV wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi John,
>>
>> I think you'd like this book be B. Alan Wallace 'Choosing Reality: A
>> Buddhist View of Physics and the Mind.' The book has early on a chapter
>> tracing the history of the scientific realism versus scientific
>> instrumentalism debate. Very interesting!!! The next chapter is on science
>> today.
>>
>>
>> Marsha
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Oct 6, 2010, at 6:50 PM, John Carl wrote:
>>
>>> made me look, Marsha. Even worse, made me wiki-look.
>>> ---On Rationalism vs. Empiricism
>>> The most prominent distinguishing characteristic between these two
>>> philosophies is that strict empiricists reject all *a priori* truths,
>>> decrying any belief in innate knowledge or intuition
>>> --------
>>>
>>> So to an empiricist, "belief" is the problem. Do they believe this
>>> strongly? And from what "facts" is it derived?
>>>
>>> Hmmm... indeed. I'm with you on that one, Marsha.
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 11:00 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hello again,
>>>>
>>>> Been thinking, normally dangerous, but with a fever doubly so. - I keep
>>>> thinking about you using the term "rational construct". It seems to me
>>>> while your Philosophy of Essence and the Metaphysics of Quality are both
>>>> centered on Value their major difference is reason versus experience. Yes?
>>>> Rationality versus Empiricism? Do you agree? And having done a search, I
>>>> see ti is a very old conflict, indeed. Hmmm.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Marsha
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Oct 2, 2010, at 2:49 AM, MarshaV wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Greetings Ham,
>>>>>
>>>>> On Oct 2, 2010, at 2:05 AM, Ham Priday wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Marsha:
>>>>>>> How I understand conscious awareness is as pure process,
>>>>>>> 100% immediate experience, and the moment one tries to
>>>>>>> analyze it, it is gone. All other entities - I, knower, self,
>>>>>>> individual, me, etc. - are _conceptually constructed_ and
>>>>>>> have no independent existence. They are a conglomerate
>>>>>>> ever-changing, impermanent, interdependent, inorganic,
>>>>>>> biological, social and intellectual static patterns of value.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ham:
>>>>>> Marsha, you are attempting to describe the subjective self as if it were
>>>> an objective entity, which of course is impossible. Yes, "raw" experience
>>>> is "immediate", but it hardly represents 100% of conscious awareness.
>>>> There
>>>> is also the memory function which links self-awareness to the past and
>>>> makes
>>>> experience a continuum; the emotive response which is the psycho-biological
>>>> reaction to what is experienced; and intellection which interprets the data
>>>> as a rational construct. 'I', 'Knower', 'Individual', and 'Me' are not
>>>> different entities but simply the labels we use to identify the Self.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That standard definition, which even you must be tired of by now, paints
>>>> a fuzzy picture of self-awareness as if to demean its credibility--which of
>>>> course is your intent. I still feel this is somewhat disingenuous on your
>>>> part. Certainly we cannot objectivize, quantify, measure, or localize
>>>> conscious awareness as we can, say, a rock or a tree. Conversely, however,
>>>> what would the rock or tree be if there was no awareness of it? As Pirsig
>>>> insisted, experience is primary; and since experience is known only to
>>>> awareness, all we really know about objective existence is that it is
>>>> patterned from sensible value.
>>>>>
>>>>> Marsha:
>>>>> I am putting aside the experience of raw data (unpatterned experience)
>>>> and talking about conscious awareness as in mindfulness. Mindfulness is a
>>>> technique easily learned and strengthened through practice. It's the
>>>> experience of being here-now without constructing an associated past or
>>>> future. In the mindfulness experience there is no building a subjective
>>>> self for it is all _process_, all immediate experience. Pattern
>>>> recognition
>>>> seems limited to the function of the sense organ. It is _habit_ that
>>>> associates these immediate experiences with an individual, independent
>>>> self,
>>>> or its various labels, rather than understanding that it is a flow of
>>>> experiences. _Habit_ that when conscious awareness (mindfulness) stops
>>>> then
>>>> the making of meaning begins (internal story-telling). It is the
>>>> conceptual
>>>> constructing, making of meaning, that creates the independent self. It is
>>>> an after-experience add-on. I am suggesting that in mindfulness it is
>>>> obvious that experiences comes fi
>>>> rst, and that associating now-experiences to a 'self' is a secondary
>>>> habit. Experience is primary! Self-building is secondary.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks Ham,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Marsha
>>
>>>
>
> ___
>
>
> 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
