Hello everyone >From: "Case" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [email protected] >To: <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: [MD] Art of Value >Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2007 15:52:22 -0400 > >[Dan] >Perhaps I misunderstood you. You said: If empirical means accessible to the >senses then certainly the self is nothing if not empirical. > >Are you saying the self is empirical, accessible to the senses? If a doctor >does an MRI on a person's body, they can image the various organs as they >are empirical. But can they image the self? > >[Case] >My "self" is empirically available to me. I trust that yours is empirically >available to you.
Dan: No, its not. Your trust is misplaced. If my self was empirically available I would know where it is and what it is. I don't. I put it to you that your self is not empirically available to you either. If it is, again, please tell me where it is. Tell me what it is. You say it is available to your senses so that shouldn't be difficult. >Case: >Your "self" is only accessible to me through its products >in your writing. Dan: You only imagine it to be so. My self isn't accessible to me. How could it be accessible to anyone else? >Case: >Just as I like to think I can get some internal sense of >your self through your writing, I think we can get pointers to the nature >and workings of the "selves" through medical instruments. The products and >residue of self are the trunk, tail and ears of the blindmen's elephant. Dan: I disagree. Please cite any reputable scientific evidence for the existence of self. >Case: >But the difficulties you mention in defining self as any particular thing >or >set of things is what leads some to just disregard the concept as >meaningless. I have sympathy with this position as well. Dan: I did not say meaningless. I said self is an empty concept. That isn't meaningless. > >Dan: >I would say it is not a religion since Buddhism doesn't worship a deity. I >understand there has been much disagreement among scholars on whether >Buddhism is a religion or not. If one wishes to consider it so, I have no >problem with that. I simply prefer to think of it as a way of life rather >than a religion or a philosophy. > >[Case] >I am familiar with the argument. >But Buddhists are not the only ones making it. Dan: As I said, I do not consider myself a Buddhist. >Case: >Evangelical Christians make >it as well: > >"Christianity has mistakenly been defined and described as a religion in >which morality and belief-system in correspondence to the Book are regarded >as the basis of the role-playing and problem-solving of the Christian life. >Not true! Christianity is Christ!" >-James A. Fowler > >"Christianity is not a religion; it is a personal relationship with Jesus >Christ." >- Anonymous posting to a Christian mailing list. > >"Yet, ironically, Evangelicals themselves often deny that they practice a >"religion"! You see, they define religion as: "a burdensome yoke of >man-made >rules and dead rituals; a futile attempt to please God and save oneself by >good works". So they insist that Christianity is not a religion but a >personal relationship with Jesus Christ." >- http://home.nyc.rr.com/mysticalrose/religion.html > >These are not especially good examples of authoritative quotes. They were >pulled together in haste. But this is a position I have heard stated often >by evangelicals. Dan: Okay. As I said, I see no debate here. > >Dan: >I did not say that. I said I'm not a Buddhist as I do not consider myself >to > >be one. I was baptized a Catholic yet I do not consider myself to be a >Catholic either. I am a collection of patterns of value. I don't find that >of particular import, however. > >[Case] >I share your reluctance to be pigeon holed. Dan: It's not about pigeon holing. >Case: >Dan: >Who is the discoverer of the self? Has anyone found it yet? I don't think >so. So I imagine if you were to ask any reputable scientist they would be >forced to say the self is an empty concept, that it does not exist. > >[Case] >As I stated earlier I share the concern of placing too much emphasis on a >nebulous concept. But as used in common parlance, I would say each of us is >the discoverer of our own self and I know your self though analogy to my >own. Dan: If you've discovered the self then tell me where it is. That seems a simple request. I am genuinely interested in knowing. I've asked myself what it is for many years now. I get no answer. If you have an answer, please share it. I'm sure others here would love to hear it too. > >Dan: >That could well be. Just out of curiosity, have you attended any? > >[Case] >I am not much of a joiner or follower. I have been to a couple of business >"retreats" with fishbone diagrams and lots of butcher paper. I have been on >a couple of family retreats at a campground owned by the denomination I was >attending for a time. But personally I have no desire to practice or >cultivate spiritual experience in the company of others. Dan: Nor do I. Apparently I'm not making myself clear. I read the words and they seem clear. Perhaps something is being lost between the words and the reading is all I can assume. > >Dan: >There are no experts. I think that is another difference between religion >and Buddhism. Everyone practices in solitude. The first time I attended it >seemed (to me) like everyone was stuck up; in the culture I'm from we nod >to > >each other and say hi when we pass each other on a path. It is only >natural. > >At the retreat there is total silence. No one speaks or even acknowledges >anyone else for the duration. No one tells you what to do. You just do it. >It can be unnerving. > >[Case] >I assumed from what you said originally that this was not a structured kind >of event. But it would surprise me greatly to hear that certain forms and >practices are not adhered to. I would suggest that the peyote ceremony >Pirsig talks about was a kind of retreat as well. Dan: It is very difficult for people from Western cultures to understand. We think that we do. But anything we think we know, we don't. I suspect you would be greatly surprised. > >Dan: >The example you gave of the Rev. Brown showing that individuals can be >invited to experience inner states sounds (to me) a great deal like a >retreat. I might well ask you the same question: what's the difference? > >[Case] >Actually this in kind of funny. What Brown was involved in is usually >called >a revival and the collection plate is passed quite often. In fact Brown >would begin by making it clear to anyone contemplating putting a check in >the plate that thousand was spelled t-h-o-u-s-a-n-d. He enjoined those who >might be conflicted about what to chip in, that if they were hearing two >amounts, that the larger amount was "of God" and the smaller amount was >from >Satan. They should rebuke the devil and put in the larger about. > >I used to listen to this on the radio. I never attended on of these >services >in person but that is the part that would crack me up. Dan: Why would anyone find humor in larceny? > >[Dan] >But I don't want to answer a question with a question. I would imagine one >difference is that the good Rev. lives a pretty wealthy life. Probably >drives a fine car and lives in a big fancy house and wears $3000 suits. Of >course I don't know that for sure but were I a betting man, I would wager >it > >to be true as I suspect it's a pretty safe bet. > >The advisor I know has one robe that doesn't actually belong to him (don't >ask what he wears on wash day), abides in a one room stone hut (not his >own) > >without electriciity or running water, and lives on rice and tea. He >doesn't > >invite anyone to experience the spirit, so far as I know. And by example he >points the way to correct practice. > >Let me ask you a question now: in your opinion, of the two, who is closer >to > >truth? > >[Case] >I used Brown as a particularly absurd example. I also know a man whose >manages a Salvation Army Homeless Shelter as his day job and pastors a >small >Hispanic church in a low income area of town as his spiritual vocation. His >church does not prosper financially because he is not comfortable pushing >his congregation from money. He believes that he is called by God to preach >the gospel and that financial giving should come from the heart. Dan: He seems like a good man to know. >Case: >But I could also ask, how comfortable you would be having your teacher >compared to the Rajneesh or the Rev. Moon or the Heaven's Gate cult? Dan: I have no teacher. How can anyone teach that which I already know? Your question does not make sense. As Platt might say, you're just being querulous. Thank you for reading, Dan 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/
