Greetings Ian,
(Wallace, B. Alan, 'Choosing Reality : A Buddhist View of Physics and
the Mind',paperback,2003)
Marsha
On Oct 11, 2010, at 11:17 AM, Ian Glendinning wrote:
> Marsha, Ron,
>
> You talking about "Choosing Reality" by "this book" Marsha ?
> (As opposed to Vescio's introduction in "Pragmatism" mentioned by Ron.
> My edition has an intro by A J Ayer, Ron ? Which do you have ?)
>
> Ian
>
> On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 4:04 PM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> 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
>>
> 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
