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

12448Re: [Meditation Society of America] Re: Comfort Thingy

Expand Messages
  • Harvey Schneider
    Jan 2, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "jodyrrr" <jodyrrr@...>
      To: <meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Friday, January 02, 2004 11:38 AM
      Subject: [Meditation Society of America] Re: Comfort Thingy

      > --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "Harvey Schneider"
      > <haarvi1@n...> wrote:
      > > In my former skeptical questioning of the Comfort
      > > Doctrine, I asked if this doctrine was true by virtue
      > > of observation or definition. Along the same lines,
      > > it may be useful to consider another related question:
      > >
      > > What would count as evidence that the Comfort Doctrine
      > > is not true?
      > I don't know yet Harvey. It just doesn't seem possible
      > that there is any, but I guess that's indicating that I may
      > be incapable of hearing about it. I hope not.
      > I truly want to be proven wrong here. But I've been thinking
      > along these lines for a year now, and I haven't been able to
      > come up with anything.
      > I'm afraid there isn't anything. Life strives for its own
      > security. That's all it does, that's why it exists.
      > Please show me that I'm wrong.
      > > If nothing could be held against the doctrine, then it would
      > > indicate - at least to my thinking - that the doctrine is empty
      > > of any content.
      > We can't hold anything against the 'we must breathe oxygen'
      > doctrine, so why should we have to hold anything against this
      > in order for it to be true?
      > > Having a comfortable post New Years day morning,
      > > Harvey
      > --jody.

      Hi Jodyji,

      Thanks for getting back to me so quickly on this. And
      thanks for bringing up the comparaitve example of our
      need for continuous supplies of oxygen.

      With regard to our need for oxygen, it is clear that cases of
      asphyxiation occur when our supply of oxygen is interrupted.
      If asphyxiation did not occur when we don't have oxygen to
      breath, that would be evidence that the idea that we need
      oxygen is mistaken. If no kind or amount of possible evidence
      can be found to disprove the Comfort doctrine, that shows -
      to my mind - that the doctrine is vacuous.

      My argument seems to me basic philosophical analysis. I'm
      surprised Greg hasn't weighed in on this, since he was a
      philosophy professor. Do you know if he is on this list?

      Greg likes to say that if the only color out there were brown,
      there would be no way to speak of brown since there would
      be no other color to contrast the brown color with. I think my
      point about comfort as the universal motivator is very similar.
      Perhaps we could figure out a way to get Greg's input on this.

      With all brotherly love, as always....Harvey
    • Show all 6 messages in this topic