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 09:54:48 EST 1992
Article 4386 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: <1992Mar10.002256.8754@norton.com>
Date: 10 Mar 92 00:22:56 GMT
References: <98kG02Qo92X500@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>
Organization: Symantec / Peter Norton
Lines: 80

In article <98kG02Qo92X500@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> zuzu@uts.amdahl.com (Eugene P. Spadaccini) writes:
> In article <1992Mar06.011801.8699@norton.com> brian@norton.com (Brian Yoder) writes:

>  >Which undoubtedly explains the vast achievements of Buddhist societies.

> ## What is your criteria for "vast achievement" (or lack of)?
> ## To which "Buddhist societies" are you referring? Japan?

You can almost pick any one you like, scientific discoveries, industrial
development, social development, you name it.  You wouldn't really expect
a lot out of people who explicitly shun the desire to accomplish anything
as a means to accomplishment would you?  To the extent that societies with
large buddhist populations have advanced it was by rejecting the teachings
of buddhism.  

As for Japan, I thought they were more shintoist than buddhist.

>  >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?

> ## Ever hear the phrase "trying to catch a greased pig"?

You might cause a lot of ruckuss chasin' him around, but you'll sure do
a lot better trying SOMETHING as opposed to just giving up on the whole
idea of catching him in the first place.

>  > It's mystical nonsense.

> ## That's a pretty convincing argument. 

I had not intended to get into a theological argument here, but it looks
like there actually ARE some people here who feel inclined to take this
seriously.  Before we start, would you agree that something being mystically
founded means that it is in fact unfounded?  Or would you say that potentially
you could say about some idea "Sure it's mysticism, but I think it's a good 
basis for building my AI machine."?

Whichever side of the fence you take on that issue, would you say that buddhism 
is in fact a mystical belief?  

I could explain why I think mysticism is a false basis for knowledge, and 
why buddhism falls into that category (particularly it's "non-striving"
doctrine), but I'd like to know where you are coming from on this first.

>  >Hey lobotomy and "I, omnipotent God" 

Of course the buddhists would say that the two are one and the same. ;-)/2

>   there's an approach where
>   I don't need to control or affect my world but can let it and its
>   inhabitants be. 

Yeah, in other words, give up without trying.  That's not much of a solution to
most problems, and certainly isn't the universal solution to all problems the
buddhists claim it is.  Have you really studied this stuff yourself?  It 
goes a lot farther than just suggesting that sometimes the cost of achieving
something if more than the value of the achievement.

>   Since you are obviously a "brass-tacks" sorta guy consider
>   this: 
[Sexual suggestions omitted]

That is irrelevant to the issue at hand.  I quite freely admit that there are 
some things outside my power to change.  The question is whether one ought
to treat everything that way and whether "self-knowledge" as a particular
goal ought to be pursued in that manner.  

This is all pretty silly anyway.  You have duly noted your distaste for my 
daring to question buddhism.  Now if you want to defend such ideas, please
go ahead and present your case.  If you don't think a case can be made, then
just drop the subject, it only makes you look like some kind of confused
mystic worried that science might reveal the "little man behind the curtain".

--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.             --
--                                   -                                       --


