From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!nstn.ns.ca!aunro!alberta!ubc-cs!uw-beaver!micro-heart-of-gold.mit.edu!wupost!uunet!psinntp!norton!brian Tue Mar 24 09:54:46 EST 1992
Article 4384 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!nstn.ns.ca!aunro!alberta!ubc-cs!uw-beaver!micro-heart-of-gold.mit.edu!wupost!uunet!psinntp!norton!brian
>From: brian@norton.com (Brian Yoder)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: mean,meaner,MEANING-est/ intention-and-self the buddhist way
Message-ID: <1992Mar10.002155.8700@norton.com>
Date: 10 Mar 92 00:21:55 GMT
References: <1992Mar6.154306.1665@saifr00.cfsat.honeywell.com>
Organization: Symantec / Peter Norton
Lines: 82

petersow@saifr00.cfsat.honeywell.com (Wayne Peterson) writes:
> Brian Yoder = By
> Eric Silber = ES
> Wayne Peterson = WP
 
> ES:
>    According to the Buddhist tradition of analysis of the self, it is   
>    the absence of intention which allows the self to be fully present.
>    Also, the deepest understanding, in the buddhist view, comes when
>    one is freed from intentionality.
 
> BY:
> Which undoubtedly explains the vast achievements of Buddhist societies.
 
> WP:
> Which lacking the white mans God complex has not dominated the world.
 
Do you like putting words in my mouth?  I happen to think that the "white 
man's God complex" (christianity) is nonsense too, but we weren't talking 
about THEM.  Don't just assume that because I think that one set of
mystical beliefs is backward and false that I must therefore have another
set of backward mystical beliefs to offer in it's place.

> BY:
> I realize that they claim that you get what you want when you stop going
> after it, 

> WP:
> The Budhist make no such claim.  They say that desire is the cause of
> much of our grief.

Sure they say that, but they also say that the way to "know yourself" (the
thing that got this whole discussion started) is to refrain from trying to 
understand.  However, both of those positions are false or at least misleading.
Sure, desires (stupid ones) are the cause of much grief.  They are also the
cause of ALL happiness.  Do you want to toss out the baby with the bathwater?
Do you agree with them on this or are you just taking a devil's advocate 
position?
 
> BY:
> but what in the world makes you think that's true?  There is 
> certainly such a thing as "trying too hard", but that doesn't mean that 
> lack of striving is the way to achieve your goals. 

> WP:
> What makes you think that desireless action can come about without
> great striving.  This Budhist state is highly exulted and rarely
> achieved.

That's the whole idea....you can only get to that state by refraining from
trying it.  Additionally, there is a lot of hype associated with just how great
buddhist state of mind is supposed to be, but that's all hooey too.  What's
so great about walking around as a desireless zombie?  Does that sound like
a wonderful feeling to you?
 
> BY:
> It's mystical nonsense.
 
> WP:
> Not only dont you understand Budhism, but obviously you dont
> understand mysticism.  What do you think Socrates referred to
> by "knowing thyself".

Self-knowledge and mysticism are most certainly NOT the same thing!  One could
claim self-knowledge through a whole range of means besides mysticism including
neurology, psychotherapy, introspection, and philosophical investigations, none
of which need to have any mystical content.  

My definition of mysticism is any system of belief based on claims of 
"unknowable" dimensions or beings, or subjective experiences that cannot
be explained or described in terms of sense experience.  Self-knowledge is
orthogonal to this, and mysticism can be (and has been) used to make 
claims about every kind of knowledge from weather patterns, to personal 
ralationships, to war plans.

--Brian
 
-- 
-- Brian K. Yoder (brian@norton.com) - Maier's Law:                          --
-- Peter Norton Computing Group      - If the facts do not fit the theory,   --
-- Symantec Corporation              - they must be disposed of.             --
--                                   -                                       --


