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

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

Expand Messages
  • Jason Fishman
    Good evening gents, Tagging along... Without the context of a contradictive proposition, such as black and white, all conceptual understandings contain
    Message 1 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.