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

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

Expand Messages
  • Harvey Schneider
    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,
    Message 1 of 6 , Jan 2, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      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?

      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.

      Having a comfortable post New Years day morning,
      Harvey
    • jodyrrr
      ... 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
      Message 2 of 6 , Jan 2, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        --- 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.
      • Harvey Schneider
        ... From: jodyrrr To: Sent: Friday, January 02, 2004 11:38 AM Subject: [Meditation Society
        Message 3 of 6 , 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
        • jodyrrr
          ... wrote: [snip] ... I see what you are getting at Harvey. It s like calling the sky blue, or explaining why it s blue. So what? Knowing
          Message 4 of 6 , Jan 2, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "Harvey Schneider"
            <haarvi1@n...> wrote:

            [snip]

            > 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

            I see what you are getting at Harvey. It's like calling the
            sky blue, or explaining why it's blue. So what? Knowing
            that doesn't, nor will it ever, change anything about the sky
            or its color.

            However, many seekers find themselves in situations where
            they are analyzing why this do this or do that. They want to
            know what is it that causes them to seemingly get in their
            own way sometimes.

            I think the 'comfort doctrine' may be able to help in these
            instances. I'm not 100% sure yet, but with Bruceji's and
            Sandeepji's encouragement, it certainly seems to be worth
            a really good look.

            --jody.
          • Gregory Goode
            Hi Jody and Harvey, Actually, you guys are among my favorite conversants! Is what you re talking about is the truth of the claim that the search for comfort is
            Message 5 of 6 , Jan 2, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              Hi Jody and Harvey,

              Actually, you guys are among my favorite conversants!

              Is what you're talking about is the truth of the claim that the search for comfort is the *only* or the *basic underlying* motive for all actions?

              Is this meant to be an empirical sort of observation that would be made in psychology?  What does it have to do with the other insight, made on this list and many others, that "No statement is true," (even that one!)?

              --Greg

              At 08:58 PM 1/2/2004 +0000, jodyrrr wrote:
              --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "Harvey  Schneider"
              <haarvi1@n...> wrote:

              [snip]

              > 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

              I see what you are getting at Harvey.  It's like calling the
              sky blue, or explaining why it's blue.  So what?  Knowing
              that doesn't, nor will it ever, change anything about the sky
              or its color.

              However, many seekers find themselves in situations where
              they are analyzing why this do this or do that.  They want to
              know what is it that causes them to seemingly get in their
              own way sometimes.

              I think the 'comfort doctrine' may be able to help in these
              instances.  I'm not 100% sure yet, but with Bruceji's and
              Sandeepji's encouragement, it certainly seems to be worth
              a really good look.

              --jody.



              Yahoo! Groups Links
            • Jason Fishman
              Good evening gents, Tagging along... Without the context of a contradictive proposition, such as black and white, all conceptual understandings contain
              Message 6 of 6 , Jan 2, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                Good evening gents,
                 
                Tagging along...
                 
                Without the context of a contradictive proposition, such as black and white, all conceptual understandings contain perception and twinge for or against any other perception. Comfort factoring is automatically assumed to have a non-comfot (or perhaps suffering is a better word) tied to it. The dirt is brown, automatically assumes there is any color to dirt whatsoever, which also assumes that color is a common perception among the human species. The interesting thing about all this is the assumption basis and it's automatic inheritence.
                 
                Perhaps it's all much akin to compairing apples and oranges, although both being fruits, what does one fruit really taste like to another perception or look like for that matter. The automatic assumption in play would state the it tastes much the same to a clean pallet. Fortunately, there tends to be some sort of basis to all this discussion, even if that basis is simple language. Without basis,  word dictionaries would vary much more wildly from perception to perception,  most likely to the point where all writings would be incoherent regardless of single character string recognition.
                 
                Jody's interesting ploy, just as many (or most) other coherent statements, contains it's automatic assumption as well. Those not seeking comfort are quite comfortable, those that are, are seeking comfort from suffering. I have a headache, I seek asprin or some other comforting method :-)
                 
                The assumption that all basis are reliant apon each other is a much more difficult process to explain. There may very well be quite a few more basic structures along side simple contradictions. Explaining those structures without some sort of comparison creates a tough undertaking.
                 
                Peace and Love

                Harvey Schneider <haarvi1@...> wrote:

                ----- 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




                Yahoo! Groups Links


                Do you Yahoo!?
                Find out what made the Top Yahoo! Searches of 2003

              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.