Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [existlist] Re: Buddhism and blindness to reality

Expand Messages
  • Herman
    Hi Wil, ... That there are certain molecules that replicate their structure does not mean that those molecules have purpose. And that therefore the human body,
    Message 1 of 168 , Feb 1, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Wil,

      On 1 February 2010 10:54, Sindarius <eupraxis@...> wrote:
      > Polly,
      >
      > The Question: "Is seeing everything in terms of the somatic reductive?".
      >
      > Polly: I don't believe it is. Seeing myself and others as worked matter as
      > much as the environment against which we work is worked matter, is a
      > coherent account of the world, IMO. I believe the onus is on those who
      > intuit that uncertain something beyond to justify why they are not
      > guilty of some idealist holism.
      >
      > Response: The question is 'what works the matter?'. When is it that matter has a purpose, a project, a sense of place and relation.

      That there are certain molecules that replicate their structure does
      not mean that those molecules have purpose. And that therefore the
      human body, through its marvellous complexity, should have
      capabilities not inherent in single components should hardly be
      surprising. If one adds hydrogen or oxygen to a fire separately,
      they'd better be very careful. Yet a certain combination of those two,
      H2O, will put the fire out. Go figure.

      > Even the simplest microbe demonstrates this upsurge of 'interiority' such that we regard it as a fellow guest in this cosmos. While I do not ascribe to making of that guest a ghost in the machine, as they say, I do acknowledge that the machine-qua-machine cannot properly do justice to this apparent enigma.
      >

      I don't have any problem with sentience as an emergent phenomenon of
      certain complexity,


      > Secondly, what is matter, anyway? Quarks, which are themselves wiggles in the nothingness of space?

      Interesting question, no doubt. But not relevant to these arms and
      legs, that carry out their labours so they can go shopping.

      > Matter is no more than a question of bound acceleration and energy. It is nothing. This is expressed by both relativity and quantum physics. We cannot rely on classical notions of ontology where 'stuff' is an absolute of some kind. But we are not nothing, especially in >relation to each other.

      Practically, we are our bodies, in relation.

      Polly




      >
      > Wil
    • Mary
      Tom, existentialism for me involves less of the ideal and more of the practical pain/pleasure dynamic. Integration and cooperation as one s ideals do not
      Message 168 of 168 , Feb 7, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        Tom, existentialism for me involves less of the ideal and more of the practical pain/pleasure dynamic. Integration and cooperation as one's ideals do not resolve common relationship issues. You can appeal to these ideals for conflict resolution, but they never guarantee any success. Although existentialism is a discussion about alterity, it offers no ideals. Mary

        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "tom" <tsmith17_midsouth1@...> wrote:
        >
        The nerd and the jock are the two stereotype extremes of thinking versus sensory motor functions.I believe the ideal is integration.
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.