From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!psinntp!norton!brian Tue Mar 24 09:55:42 EST 1992
Article 4453 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!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: <1992Mar14.015607.1320@norton.com>
Date: 14 Mar 92 01:56:07 GMT
References: <1992Mar12.010517.23690@a.cs.okstate.edu>
Organization: Symantec / Peter Norton
Lines: 141

In article <1992Mar12.010517.23690@a.cs.okstate.edu> onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu (ONSTOTT CHARLES OR) writes:
> In article <1992Mar10.004000.8828@norton.com> brian@norton.com (Brian Yoder) writes:
> >onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu (ONSTOTT CHARLES OR) writes:
> >> In article <1992Mar06.011801.8699@norton.com> brian@norton.com (Brian Yoder) writes:
> >> >silber@orfeo.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Silber) writes:

> >> >Which undoubtedly explains the vast achievements of Buddhist societies.
> >> >I realize that they claim that you get what you want when you stop going
> >> >after it, 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.  It's mystical nonsense.

> >>   Of course your western interpretation of this claim distorts its purpose.

> >Oh geez.  What about YOUR western interpretation?  I am interpreting the words
> >I see on the screen in the english language.  If there is some other way of
> >interpreting them, please explain and defend it.  Don't just discount my
> >comments because I'm a westerner.  If anything, my western outlook ought to be
> >a good reason to consider my comments.

>   The point still remains in tact, regardless of your rhetoric, that you
> can not understand the Buddhistic system if you must go on thinking of it
> in terms of an industrial society.  

I am not "thinking in terms of industrial society".  I am thinking terms of
the facts of the one and only reality there is.  Reason is not "just another
way of thinking", it is the only valid way of thinking.  You seem to be 
an epistemological egalitarian who thinks that all methods of thinking are
equally efficacious.  If you would like to defend this point of view, please
feel free.  (Though I am curious by what means you propose to do this since
according to this kind of thinking a rational proof is no better than an 
irrational one.)

> When Buddhism was first born, there was
> no such bird.  To ignore the culture elements of interpretation, is to chunk
> hermeneutics out the window and walk over eggshells with clump feet.  Of
> course, you can come to the concluseriod.

> But becareful, there is plenty of comparitive literature available
> that will show you where you have gone wrong.  Please review that material
> before you discount the importance of societal influence.

I have read some of that "literature" and it's completely wrong since it's
(to generalize) based on the idea that there is no objective truth and that
there is no such think as objective meaning in writing or other communication.
Both of these are false premises, but if you would like to propose that 
I cannot read a book and understand objectively what the author said, then 
please feel free to attempt it.  First though, you ought to explain how it is
that you think you can understand the challenge I have set forth for you and how 
it is that you think that I will be able to understand what you have written.
This should be good.

> >> I don't think that Buddhist's meant that you could get what you want if you
> >> quite striving if you assume that material things are the things you can get.
> >> The idea here is to stop searching for the self--in so doing you are
> >> distorting the self. 

> >They do say that, but they also say that this is a general rule for 
> >or accomplishing anything.  Perhaps you ought to study the nature of the 
> >"buddah-mind they are supposed to strive for.  George Romero couldn't have 
> >better!

>   The first tennant of Buddhism to remove suffering. How is this accomplished?

And even more interestingly, how was it determined that this the most important
issue?  What epistemology was used?  One based on intuition no doubt.

> In part, by removing desire.  Desire for what?  For becomming and for
> material possesions.  

In other words, if you stop wanting anything, you will never experience the 
feeling of unfulfilled desires.  Not a very helpful solution, if happiness is 
the goal, and not a very effective approach since if one eliminated all desires
for everything, one would starve or be hit by the first passing truck.  To 
practice this ideal consistently is to commit suicide.

> Why do we remove desire?  To remove suffering and to clear the mind.  Get it right.

Sure, but what's the bottom line?  Empty the mind.  Given all of the justification,
that's the conclusion, and it's clearly wrong.

> >> Being locked in a western society 

> >"Locked in"?  Come off it.  Westerners have freedom to think and discover 
> >whatever they want.  It is the non-westerners (and I am using 'westerner' in
> >the intellectual, not in the geographic or ethnic sense) who suffer from being
> >unable to understand or express ideas unpopular among their countrymen.  Or 
> >do you feel "caged by the unceasing demand for reason" western society 
> >promotes?

>   Of course westerns have the freedom to think and discover what they want,
> but you have a responsibility to realize that western thinking can, in fact,
> distort proper interpretation.  

What nonsense!  Reason (operating on sense data) is the one and only method 
for reaching knowledge the world.  What sorts of "distortions" do you think can
from being rational?  What sorts of benefits have you been deluded into thinking
can be achieved by irrationality?

>If you want to ignore this, fine as I will
> simply chuckle at your clumsyness when dealing with such matters.

It is in fact not true that rational thinking can distort one's ideas.  
If you choose to ignore that fact I will simply chuckle at your denial 
of the efficacy of reason and call you an irrational fool.

Where did you get this ridiculous idea that it is sophisticated and in
any sense "better" to reject reason?  I run into people from time to time
who express this irrational point of view and all I can attribute it to is
dishonesty and too many university philosophy courses.

> >> >Hey, I have an idea.  I'll fill up my machine's memory with NOPs and a JUMP 
> >> >to the top at the end.  That would be the ultimate Buddha-Mind AI program
> >> >with "total enlightenment" right?

> >>   Yeah, right....

> >Everyone keeps just pooh-poohing this, but I was half serious.  This is exactly
sed to happen" or "what you are to feel" or anything like
> this.  Of course, this sort of goal orientation is extremely western and
> can be read into an eastern text if you insist on distorting it.

Where's the "distortion"?  Is your assumption that any criticism of some 
mystical non-western doctrine must be based on a misunderstanding of it
and that it cannot be evaluated as false by reason?  On what basis do
your reach such a conclusion?

Here's the bottom line.  Do you think that an idea that involves a contradiction
or relies on an srbitrary base ought to be considered to be true?  If not, then
you are "tainted by westernism" and must agree with me that this is the one and
only method of knowledge.  If not, then your ARE an irrational person and I can 
see no reason to bother communicating with you any longer, since you will prove to
be immune to rational argumentation, and that is the only kind I care to offer or
consider.

--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.             --
--                                   -                                       --


