From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!convex!constellation!a.cs.okstate.edu!onstott Tue Mar 24 09:55:45 EST 1992
Article 4459 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!convex!constellation!a.cs.okstate.edu!onstott
>From: onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu (ONSTOTT CHARLES OR)
Subject: Re: mean,meaner,MEANING-est/ intention-and-self the buddhist way
References: <1992Mar12.010517.23690@a.cs.okstate.edu> <1992Mar14.015607.1320@norton.com>
Message-ID: <1992Mar14.220404.11894@a.cs.okstate.edu>
Organization: Oklahoma State University, Computer Science, Stillwater
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 92 22:04:04 GMT
Lines: 209

BY - Brian Yoder
CO - Charles Onstott


BY:
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 

CO:
 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.  

BY:
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.)

CO REPLY:
    If you are not thinking about this in terms of an industrial society,
please define what you meant by achievements of Buddhist societies above.
To remain purely rational, the achievemnets that Buddhists saught were
accomplished in that they were looking for an emptiness.  Of course,
since you priveledge rationality over anything else, you could never find
anything even remotely psychologically interesting in their project.
And yes, to continue to priveledge rationality will, in a sense, 
create problems for you with the Buddhistic system.  It seems a very
odd project to attempt to analyze an irrational system using rational means
and expect to come to any sound conclusions.  I think this action, on 
your part, moves you away from the thing you want to embrasse(Ie, rationality).


CO:
 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.

BY:

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 thing 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.

CO REPLY:
  Some of that literature also maintains that there is an objective truth.
But objective truth doesn't necessarily mean that of the rational sort.
OF course, because you priveledge rationality as a means to truth, I could
never hope to make you understand.  Just remember that truth existed
well before rational methods--not only did it exist but it was as 
coherent.  In terms of understanding the problems which you have from a 
philosophical view, I recommend the writtings of Heideggar(whose rationality
I am sure you will find impeccable) and to the writtings of Derrida who
you may find more difficult. Of course, you will find both of these people
impossible to understand if you continue to priveledge rationality to 
such an extreme.  If you could, for a moment, humble yourself while reading
these people, I think you will begin to see the inherent problems of
priveledge rationality as the only means to Truth.  Also, to make the
statment that "that which is not rational is irrational" is fallacious
in itself, even in rationlistic standards.  Heidegger, and Derrida to
a certain degree, a looking for the arational.


BY:
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!

CO:

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

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

CO REPLY:
  The primary task that the historical Buddha set out on was the task
of removing suffereing.  If you do not know this, you will never understand
Buddhism.  As to what epistemology was used: the question is irrelevant.

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

BY:
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.

CO REPLY:
  Yes, and here we find your onto-western-teleology "Not a very helpful solution
if happiness is the goal."  Hapiness is not the goal, removing suffering is.
As to your statement that to practice this ideal consistently is to commit
suicide, you may be correct.  Also the historical Buddha was found
almost dead before he set out upon the Noble Eight-Fold path from 
practicing more stringent philosophies.  However, if you maintain that
commiting suicide is a bad thing, again you are priveledging rational 
"humanistic" philosophies, over the sort of philosophy being presented here.
Again, of course, you can maintain that it is not right for you--this, perhaps,
is the only solution you can "rationally" make.

CO:
Why do we remove desire?  To remove suffering and to clear the mind.

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

CO:

Wrong? How?  It is purely consistent within the Buddhistic system.
You can only say it is wrong because you priveledge something that 
does not exist in the system itself.  If you really firmly believe in
the rational approach, why can't you treat the text systematically, 
rationally, and as a whole?
>
BY:
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.

CO REPLY:
   Where did you get the idea that it is ridiculous to reject reason?
Probably from within your system of reason, no doubt.  Again, you can not
help but priveledge it.

BY:
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?

CO REPLY:
  No my assumption is not that ANY criticism of mystical no-western 
doctrine must be based on a misunderstanding of it.  I am maintatining
that YOUR criticism of it shows a blatant misunderstanding of it.  IF you
want to critisize the Buddhistic system, you need to do so within the
confines of the system it self; or else you are comparing apples to oranges.


BY:
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.

CO REPLY:

  Here's the bottom line: You aren't representing the Buddhistic system
properly.  It may take years for us to come to a conclusion as to WHAT
the Buddhisitic system IS(which, in itself lends trouble to the analytic
method you are using).  Your rheteroic aboveis bipolar because you
priviledge rationality so much.  Rationality is a fine thing and it is
quite useful in rational approaches.(ie it is good for analyzing
rational systems, for inventing technology, and it is even used, to a
certain degree, in the sciences.)  Also, to not be rational is not to be
irrational--as was said above, this is a fallacy even by your rational
standards.  As you to whether or not you want to continue communicating with
me, I will leave that to your rational judgement(although I am certain
you couldn't resist a slam on me.)  Finally, if rational argumentation
is all that you care to consider why do you concern yourself so much
with the, as you put it, irrational Buddhistic system?  Why do you
feel so compelled to tear it down using rational tools?  Further, I 
suggest that this can not be done.  It seems to me that you maintain
a rational stance in word, but I don't find it in action with your
treatment of Buddhism.  

  Finally, I do not want to continue discussing this on this forum
as this is not related to the philosophy of AI any longer.  YOu can
either cross post a reply to this to talk.misc.philosophy or you can
reply in the mail.  I am certain that several personages on this forum
are quite bored with our ranting and raving by now.

BCnya,
  Charles O. Onstott, III

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles O. Onstott, III                  P.O. Box 2386
Undergraduate in Philosophy              Stillwater, Ok  74076
Oklahoma State University                onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu



"The most abstract system of philosophy is, in its method and purpose, 
nothing more than an extremely ingenious combination of natural sounds."
                                              -- Carl G. Jung
-----------------------------------------------------------------------




