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

Re: [Meditation Society of America] Re: The cash value of comfort

Expand Messages
  • Harvey Schneider
    ... From: jodyrrr To: Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2004 8:10 PM Subject: [Meditation Society
    Message 1 of 19 , Jan 3, 2004
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "jodyrrr" <jodyrrr@...>
      To: <meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2004 8:10 PM
      Subject: [Meditation Society of America] Re: The cash value of comfort


      >
      > True, but perhaps the principle is all encompassing.

      To unpack my previous comment:
      Consider Greg's question.
      Is your Comfort Doctrine empirical psychology?
      This is the same as asking is it true by observation.
      The truths of psychology are true by observation and
      are falsifiable.
      The meaning of a principle is defined by what would
      count as evidence for its falsity.
      Definitions are not discoveries.
      They cannot be falsified.
      Not for lack of evidence,
      but because they are conventions.
      What is not falsifiable is not provable.
      Harvey

      > --jody.
    • jodyrrr
      ... But it didn t start out as a question. It was a spontaneously recognized observation. One day, pretty much out of the blue, it occurred to me that life
      Message 2 of 19 , Jan 3, 2004
        --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "Harvey Schneider"
        <haarvi1@n...> wrote:
        >
        > ----- Original Message -----
        > From: "jodyrrr" <jodyrrr@y...>
        > To: <meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com>
        > Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2004 8:10 PM
        > Subject: [Meditation Society of America] Re: The cash value of comfort
        >
        >
        > >
        > > True, but perhaps the principle is all encompassing.
        >
        > When you turn a useful heuristic question into a truism,
        > what you have is not an all encompassing principle but
        > a counterfit bill. No cash value.
        > Harvey
        >
        > > --jody.

        But it didn't start out as a question. It was a spontaneously
        recognized observation. One day, pretty much out of the blue,
        it occurred to me that life moves toward comfort. Since then,
        I haven't found anything to refute the original observation, and
        much to support it.

        It may be unseemly to think that you and I do everything for
        comfort, but I haven't found any indication that it isn't true.

        --jody.
      • jodyrrr
        ... Of course it s not provable. It s not science. An observation was made. I m testing it against my experience, bringing it up here to see what gets cooked
        Message 3 of 19 , Jan 3, 2004
          --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "Harvey Schneider"
          <haarvi1@n...> wrote:
          >
          > ----- Original Message -----
          > From: "jodyrrr" <jodyrrr@y...>
          > To: <meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com>
          > Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2004 8:10 PM
          > Subject: [Meditation Society of America] Re: The cash value of comfort
          >
          >
          > >
          > > True, but perhaps the principle is all encompassing.
          >
          > To unpack my previous comment:
          > Consider Greg's question.
          > Is your Comfort Doctrine empirical psychology?
          > This is the same as asking is it true by observation.
          > The truths of psychology are true by observation and
          > are falsifiable.
          > The meaning of a principle is defined by what would
          > count as evidence for its falsity.
          > Definitions are not discoveries.
          > They cannot be falsified.
          > Not for lack of evidence,
          > but because they are conventions.
          > What is not falsifiable is not provable.
          > Harvey
          >
          > > --jody.

          Of course it's not provable. It's not science.

          An observation was made. I'm testing it against
          my experience, bringing it up here to see what gets
          cooked up, and waiting to see if there is any value
          in it as a tool for inquiry.

          It may or may not have value. Or it may have value
          to some and not to others. All I'm sure about is that
          I have yet to find a behavior that wasn't ultimately
          about comfort and security, or the improvement of
          one's condition, as per my analysis.

          It may seem obvious and superfluous, but that
          doesn't mean it isn't true in the sense of being
          an adequate and succinct description of what
          is going on in life.

          --jody.
        • Harvey Schneider
          ... From: jodyrrr To: Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2004 10:52 PM Subject: [Meditation Society
          Message 4 of 19 , Jan 3, 2004
            ----- Original Message -----
            From: "jodyrrr" <jodyrrr@...>
            To: <meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com>
            Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2004 10:52 PM
            Subject: [Meditation Society of America] Re: The cash value of comfort


            > --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "Harvey Schneider"
            > <haarvi1@n...> wrote:
            > >
            > > ----- Original Message -----
            > > From: "jodyrrr" <jodyrrr@y...>
            > > To: <meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com>
            > > Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2004 8:10 PM
            > > Subject: [Meditation Society of America] Re: The cash value of comfort
            > >
            > >
            > > >
            > > > True, but perhaps the principle is all encompassing.
            > >
            > > To unpack my previous comment:
            > > Consider Greg's question.
            > > Is your Comfort Doctrine empirical psychology?
            > > This is the same as asking is it true by observation.
            > > The truths of psychology are true by observation and
            > > are falsifiable.
            > > The meaning of a principle is defined by what would
            > > count as evidence for its falsity.
            > > Definitions are not discoveries.
            > > They cannot be falsified.
            > > Not for lack of evidence,
            > > but because they are conventions.
            > > What is not falsifiable is not provable.
            > > Harvey
            > >
            > > > --jody.
            >
            > Of course it's not provable. It's not science.
            >
            > An observation was made. I'm testing it against
            > my experience, bringing it up here to see what gets
            > cooked up, and waiting to see if there is any value
            > in it as a tool for inquiry.

            What you say you are doing is science. Observation
            leading to hypothesis, followed by testing.
            >
            > It may or may not have value. Or it may have value
            > to some and not to others. All I'm sure about is that
            > I have yet to find a behavior that wasn't ultimately
            > about comfort and security, or the improvement of
            > one's condition, as per my analysis.
            >
            > It may seem obvious and superfluous, but that
            > doesn't mean it isn't true in the sense of being
            > an adequate and succinct description of what
            > is going on in life.
            >

            Hi Jody,
            What you say you are doing is science. Observation
            leading to hypothesis, followed by testing.

            What is obvious is that if you look through a blue
            lens you'll find everything in the world is blue.
            Likewise, if you take, interpret or define every kind
            of motivation as a kind of comfort seeking, you will
            find comfort to be the universal motivator.
            Questioning the stake or the comfort motive may
            be useful as an exploratory tool.
            The mistake is to go metaphysical with it and declare
            it - or even raise the possiblity that it is - an invariable
            law which you have discovered in nature.
            Harvey

            > --jody.
          • Bruce Morgen
            ... From: jodyrrr To: Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2004 10:52 PM Subject: [Meditation Society
            Message 5 of 19 , Jan 3, 2004
              Harvey Schneider wrote:
              ----- Original Message ----- 
              From: "jodyrrr" <jodyrrr@...>
              To: <meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com>
              Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2004 10:52 PM
              Subject: [Meditation Society of America] Re: The cash value of comfort
              
              
                
              --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "Harvey  Schneider" 
              <haarvi1@n...> wrote:
                  
              ----- Original Message ----- 
              From: "jodyrrr" <jodyrrr@y...>
              To: <meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com>
              Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2004 8:10 PM
              Subject: [Meditation Society of America] Re: The cash value of comfort
              
              
                    
              True, but perhaps the principle is all encompassing.
                      
              To unpack my previous comment: 
              Consider Greg's question.
              Is your Comfort Doctrine empirical psychology?
              This is the same as asking is it true by observation.
              The truths of psychology are true by observation and 
              are falsifiable.
              The meaning of a principle is defined by what would
              count as evidence for its falsity.
              Definitions are not discoveries.
              They cannot be falsified.
              Not for lack of evidence,
              but because they are conventions.
              What is not falsifiable is not provable.
              Harvey
               
                    
              --jody.
                      
              Of course it's not provable.  It's not science.
              
              An observation was made.  I'm testing it against
              my experience, bringing it up here to see what gets
              cooked up, and waiting to see if there is any value
              in it as a tool for inquiry.
                  
              What you say you are doing is science.  Observation
              leading to hypothesis, followed by testing.
                
              It may or may not have value.  Or it may have value
              to some and not to others.  All I'm sure about is that
              I have yet to find a behavior that wasn't ultimately 
              about comfort and security, or the improvement of
              one's condition, as per my analysis.
              
              It may seem obvious and superfluous, but that 
              doesn't mean it isn't true in the sense of being
              an adequate and succinct description of what
              is going on in life.
              
                  
              Hi Jody,
              What you say you are doing is science.  Observation
              leading to hypothesis, followed by testing.
              
              What is obvious is that if you look through a blue 
              lens you'll find everything in the world is blue.  
              Likewise, if you take, interpret or define every kind 
              of motivation as a kind of comfort seeking, you will 
              find comfort to be the universal motivator.
              Questioning the stake or the comfort motive may 
              be useful as an exploratory tool.
              The mistake is to go metaphysical with it and declare
              it - or even raise the possiblity that it is - an invariable
              law which you have discovered in nature.
                
              Leaving aside the unclaimed
              exclusivity implied by your
              labeling Jodyji's purport a
              personal discovery, in what
              universe is it a "mistake"
              to "raise" a "possibility?"

            • Harvey Schneider
              ... From: jodyrrr To: Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2004 10:42 PM Subject: [Meditation Society
              Message 6 of 19 , Jan 3, 2004
                ----- Original Message -----
                From: "jodyrrr" <jodyrrr@...>
                To: <meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com>
                Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2004 10:42 PM
                Subject: [Meditation Society of America] Re: The cash value of comfort


                > --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "Harvey Schneider"
                > <haarvi1@n...> wrote:
                > >
                > > ----- Original Message -----
                > > From: "jodyrrr" <jodyrrr@y...>
                > > To: <meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com>
                > > Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2004 8:10 PM
                > > Subject: [Meditation Society of America] Re: The cash value of comfort
                > >
                > >
                > > >
                > > > True, but perhaps the principle is all encompassing.
                > >
                > > When you turn a useful heuristic question into a truism,
                > > what you have is not an all encompassing principle but
                > > a counterfit bill. No cash value.
                > > Harvey
                > >
                > > > --jody.
                >
                > But it didn't start out as a question. It was a spontaneously
                > recognized observation. One day, pretty much out of the blue,
                > it occurred to me that life moves toward comfort. Since then,
                > I haven't found anything to refute the original observation, and
                > much to support it.
                >
                > It may be unseemly to think that you and I do everything for
                > comfort, but I haven't found any indication that it isn't true.
                >
                > --jody.
                >

                Hi again, my friend,
                Seeing every motive as some variation on comfort
                seeking may be helpful to uncover certain features
                of reality.
                But it may obscure other features of reality.
                It emphasizes the similarities, but minimizes the
                differences between people.
                And ignores the viewpoint that the ascription of
                any motive at all is a projective illusion.
                Harvey
              • jodyrrr
                ... wrote: [snip] ... Well, yeah. But there is no data. There is an intellectual overlay on top of raw manifestation by way of this mind. ...
                Message 7 of 19 , Jan 3, 2004
                  --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "Harvey Schneider"
                  <haarvi1@n...> wrote:

                  [snip]

                  > Hi Jody,
                  > What you say you are doing is science. Observation
                  > leading to hypothesis, followed by testing.

                  Well, yeah. But there is no data. There is an
                  intellectual overlay on top of raw manifestation
                  by way of this mind.

                  > What is obvious is that if you look through a blue
                  > lens you'll find everything in the world is blue.
                  > Likewise, if you take, interpret or define every kind
                  > of motivation as a kind of comfort seeking, you will
                  > find comfort to be the universal motivator.

                  Of course. But that doesn't mean it isn't true, that
                  the world isn't blue.

                  > Questioning the stake or the comfort motive may
                  > be useful as an exploratory tool.
                  > The mistake is to go metaphysical with it and declare
                  > it - or even raise the possiblity that it is - an invariable
                  > law which you have discovered in nature.
                  > Harvey

                  I'll consider that. You may be completely correct.

                  But why couldn't comfort be like gravity for the
                  soul, that all beings seek security as a result of this
                  'gravity'.

                  Look at life at the cellular level. It's all about input
                  and output and optimizing based on conditions. Really,
                  seeking chemical comfort. It makes perfect sense to me
                  that this cellular seeking of comfort has been extrapolated
                  into the universe of complex organisms, which are comprised
                  of billions of cells.

                  The applicability of the idea may be in question, but
                  this blue world hasn't yet revealed to me that it isn't
                  actually blue.

                  --jody.
                • jodyrrr
                  ... wrote: [snip] ... Not if it is a significant feature of biological reality. ... But people *are* all the same, biologically, including the
                  Message 8 of 19 , Jan 3, 2004
                    --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "Harvey Schneider"
                    <haarvi1@n...> wrote:

                    [snip]

                    > Hi again, my friend,
                    > Seeing every motive as some variation on comfort
                    > seeking may be helpful to uncover certain features
                    > of reality.
                    > But it may obscure other features of reality.

                    Not if it is a significant feature of biological reality.

                    > It emphasizes the similarities, but minimizes the
                    > differences between people.

                    But people *are* all the same, biologically, including
                    the general workings of the human mind.

                    We may have all come from completely unique karmic
                    paths, making each of us utterly unique, but as
                    human beings we're all animals of the same species,
                    and you can make reasonably accurate predictions
                    about the behavior of most humans when you know a
                    few essential things about them.

                    > And ignores the viewpoint that the ascription of
                    > any motive at all is a projective illusion.
                    > Harvey

                    But it goes much deeper than motive. It is life's
                    imperative itself. It's the whole reason life has
                    evolved to where it presently is in our world.

                    Anything that could be called a motive is an
                    overlay. It's the prime directive, informing all
                    motive, but being underlying it as well.

                    The more I talk about this with you Harvey, the
                    more I'm convinced. Thanks for taking the time
                    to challenge the idea.

                    --jody.
                  • Harvey Schneider
                    ... From: jodyrrr To: Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2004 12:20 AM Subject: [Meditation Society
                    Message 9 of 19 , Jan 3, 2004
                      ----- Original Message -----
                      From: "jodyrrr" <jodyrrr@...>
                      To: <meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com>
                      Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2004 12:20 AM
                      Subject: [Meditation Society of America] Re: The cash value of comfort


                      > --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "Harvey Schneider"
                      > <haarvi1@n...> wrote:
                      >
                      > [snip]
                      >
                      > > Hi Jody,
                      > > What you say you are doing is science. Observation
                      > > leading to hypothesis, followed by testing.
                      >
                      > Well, yeah. But there is no data. There is an
                      > intellectual overlay on top of raw manifestation
                      > by way of this mind.
                      >
                      > > What is obvious is that if you look through a blue
                      > > lens you'll find everything in the world is blue.
                      > > Likewise, if you take, interpret or define every kind
                      > > of motivation as a kind of comfort seeking, you will
                      > > find comfort to be the universal motivator.
                      >
                      > Of course. But that doesn't mean it isn't true, that
                      > the world isn't blue.
                      >
                      > > Questioning the stake or the comfort motive may
                      > > be useful as an exploratory tool.
                      > > The mistake is to go metaphysical with it and declare
                      > > it - or even raise the possiblity that it is - an invariable
                      > > law which you have discovered in nature.
                      > > Harvey
                      >
                      > I'll consider that. You may be completely correct.
                      >
                      > But why couldn't comfort be like gravity for the
                      > soul, that all beings seek security as a result of this
                      > 'gravity'.
                      >
                      > Look at life at the cellular level. It's all about input
                      > and output and optimizing based on conditions. Really,
                      > seeking chemical comfort. It makes perfect sense to me
                      > that this cellular seeking of comfort has been extrapolated
                      > into the universe of complex organisms, which are comprised
                      > of billions of cells.
                      >
                      > The applicability of the idea may be in question, but
                      > this blue world hasn't yet revealed to me that it isn't
                      > actually blue.
                      >
                      > --jody.

                      Hi Jodyji,

                      Gravity is science because we can imagine observations
                      and experiments which would disprove it.
                      .
                      Your story of chemical comfort seeking cells must sound
                      gratuitously anthropomorphic even to you.

                      I imagine you might say that charged particles which attract
                      and repel each other depending on the combination of their
                      positive and negative charges do so for reasons of comfort?
                      And that the planets follow their bliss in orbiting around the
                      sun.

                      I can see the aesthetic appeal of the story line you are
                      presenting. It might be a worthwhile competition for the
                      mythology of the Greek gods. During the heyday of belief
                      in these Gods, there was nothing which could disprove
                      their existence and influence.

                      It's a poetic way of talking and I apologize for trying to talk
                      you out of it.

                      Harvey
                    • jodyrrr
                      ... It s an anthropomorphized view of what goes on there, but that doesn t mean it doesn t describe. Think about it. Cells are chemical factories. They need
                      Message 10 of 19 , Jan 4, 2004
                        --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "Harvey Schneider"
                        <haarvi1@n...> wrote:
                        >
                        > ----- Original Message -----
                        > From: "jodyrrr" <jodyrrr@y...>
                        > To: <meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com>
                        > Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2004 12:20 AM
                        > Subject: [Meditation Society of America] Re: The cash value of comfort
                        >
                        >
                        > > --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "Harvey Schneider"
                        > > <haarvi1@n...> wrote:
                        > >
                        > > [snip]
                        > >
                        > > > Hi Jody,
                        > > > What you say you are doing is science. Observation
                        > > > leading to hypothesis, followed by testing.
                        > >
                        > > Well, yeah. But there is no data. There is an
                        > > intellectual overlay on top of raw manifestation
                        > > by way of this mind.
                        > >
                        > > > What is obvious is that if you look through a blue
                        > > > lens you'll find everything in the world is blue.
                        > > > Likewise, if you take, interpret or define every kind
                        > > > of motivation as a kind of comfort seeking, you will
                        > > > find comfort to be the universal motivator.
                        > >
                        > > Of course. But that doesn't mean it isn't true, that
                        > > the world isn't blue.
                        > >
                        > > > Questioning the stake or the comfort motive may
                        > > > be useful as an exploratory tool.
                        > > > The mistake is to go metaphysical with it and declare
                        > > > it - or even raise the possiblity that it is - an invariable
                        > > > law which you have discovered in nature.
                        > > > Harvey
                        > >
                        > > I'll consider that. You may be completely correct.
                        > >
                        > > But why couldn't comfort be like gravity for the
                        > > soul, that all beings seek security as a result of this
                        > > 'gravity'.
                        > >
                        > > Look at life at the cellular level. It's all about input
                        > > and output and optimizing based on conditions. Really,
                        > > seeking chemical comfort. It makes perfect sense to me
                        > > that this cellular seeking of comfort has been extrapolated
                        > > into the universe of complex organisms, which are comprised
                        > > of billions of cells.
                        > >
                        > > The applicability of the idea may be in question, but
                        > > this blue world hasn't yet revealed to me that it isn't
                        > > actually blue.
                        > >
                        > > --jody.
                        >
                        > Hi Jodyji,
                        >
                        > Gravity is science because we can imagine observations
                        > and experiments which would disprove it.
                        > .
                        > Your story of chemical comfort seeking cells must sound
                        > gratuitously anthropomorphic even to you.

                        It's an anthropomorphized view of what goes on there, but
                        that doesn't mean it doesn't describe.

                        Think about it. Cells are chemical factories. They need
                        certain precursor molecules which they must acquire or
                        have delivered to them. They need their products and
                        their waste to be taken away. A cell's comfort would be
                        the optimization of these conditions. Conditions that
                        are less than optimal must be accomodated as best as
                        possible, seeking the best configuation for that set of
                        conditions.

                        > I imagine you might say that charged particles which attract
                        > and repel each other depending on the combination of their
                        > positive and negative charges do so for reasons of comfort?

                        Not in a 'human sitting in his easy chair way', but certainly
                        as a 'this is the best state I can obtain under these conditions
                        way' minus the anthropomorphic verbalizations.

                        > And that the planets follow their bliss in orbiting around the
                        > sun.

                        What else can they do? They've found their places in
                        relationship to their environment, whose largest influence
                        is the gravity of the sun.

                        > I can see the aesthetic appeal of the story line you are
                        > presenting. It might be a worthwhile competition for the
                        > mythology of the Greek gods. During the heyday of belief
                        > in these Gods, there was nothing which could disprove
                        > their existence and influence.
                        >
                        > It's a poetic way of talking and I apologize for trying to talk
                        > you out of it.
                        >
                        > Harvey

                        Don't apologize Harvey. I really appreciate your comments.
                        You always make good points, and I always learn from the
                        interaction.

                        Of course it's anthropomorphic to say that cells and planets
                        *seek* comfort. They find their state, whatever that is, in
                        response to environmental conditions. But functioning systems
                        have a tendency to optimize whenever possible. They don't
                        need to be alive to do this. So the planets all spin around
                        the sun, negative particles find positive ones to hook up with,
                        and cells pump out more product when provided with energy
                        and materials. These activities accept the overlay of the
                        comfort doctrine quite nicely in my view. I agree that it's
                        just one human's view (with an agenda to make it fit),
                        but that doesn't mean (to me) that it's not a good way of
                        contextualizing it all.

                        I'm not trying to develop a mythology about it, just give
                        a reason why things keep going, and to try to show the
                        general direction they keep going in.

                        --jody.
                      • Jason Fishman
                        Actually Jody, Single cells do not consume or produce, but are consumed or produced by larger multi celled organisms gear directly with production and
                        Message 11 of 19 , Jan 4, 2004
                          Actually Jody,
                           
                          Single cells do not consume or produce, but are consumed or produced by larger multi celled organisms gear directly with production and consumption of single cells. There in fact is no creation of new cells, only conversions from other cell types. This is also why a human organism dies, due entirely to lowering conversion rates over time within enviromental changes.
                           
                          There is also no death of a cell, only a conversion of one cell structure to another, in microbiological grandure. Make-up of a cell is also a conversion process, hence the need for another, through simple  transference of energies or a process labeled osmosis. It takes three basic elements to concieve, to combine, to form a functioning cell. Information of cell structure and function, the nuclei; form positive protiens, and form negative membranes.
                          Continuing to speak microbiotic, cells form when the enviroment allows such formation, there is no cell seeking (not even in theory) of a comfortable place to live/survive. Only an enviroment that dictates cellular survival or formation. This can also be applied to the human condition (only on a more gradious scale, with much more cells to create complexities), humans can only seek more comforting, when ac omfortable enviroment dictates that process to take place. If tossed into the arctic circle, there would certainly be less comfort for the human, but none the less, if survived long enough, a search for more comfort will ensue.
                           
                          The search for comfort could never be the only ploy, not for humans or the cells they are composed of. When a cell is combined to form within a certain enviroment, as long as that enviroment stays within certain survivable parameters for that organism, comfort isn't sought, but already the case.
                           
                          Something interesting to note about all this, is that the three basic building blocks survive, not only independent of each other, but also without any real physical properties. A completely self-sufficient system, without any structural system in place.
                           
                          Peace and Love
                           

                          jodyrrr <jodyrrr@...> wrote:
                          --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "Harvey  Schneider"
                          <haarvi1@n...> wrote:
                          >
                          > ----- Original Message -----
                          > From: "jodyrrr" <jodyrrr@y...>
                          > To: <meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com>
                          > Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2004 12:20 AM
                          > Subject: [Meditation Society of America] Re: The cash value of comfort
                          >
                          >
                          > > --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "Harvey  Schneider"
                          > > <haarvi1@n...> wrote:
                          > >
                          > > [snip]
                          > > 
                          > > > Hi Jody,
                          > > > What you say you are doing is science.  Observation
                          > > > leading to hypothesis, followed by testing.
                          > >
                          > > Well, yeah.  But there is no data.  There is an
                          > > intellectual overlay on top of raw manifestation
                          > > by way of this mind.
                          > >
                          > > > What is obvious is that if you look through a blue
                          > > > lens you'll find everything in the world is blue. 
                          > > > Likewise, if you take, interpret or define every kind
                          > > > of motivation as a kind of comfort seeking, you will
                          > > > find comfort to be the universal motivator.
                          > >
                          > > Of course.  But that doesn't mean it isn't true, that
                          > > the world isn't blue.
                          > >
                          > > > Questioning the stake or the comfort motive may
                          > > > be useful as an exploratory tool.
                          > > > The mistake is to go metaphysical with it and declare
                          > > > it - or even raise the possiblity that it is - an invariable
                          > > > law which you have discovered in nature.
                          > > > Harvey
                          > >
                          > > I'll consider that.  You may be completely correct.
                          > >
                          > > But why couldn't comfort be like gravity for the
                          > > soul, that all beings seek security as a result of this
                          > > 'gravity'.
                          > >
                          > > Look at life at the cellular level.  It's all about input
                          > > and output and optimizing based on conditions.  Really,
                          > > seeking chemical comfort.  It makes perfect sense to me
                          > > that this cellular seeking of comfort has been extrapolated
                          > > into the universe of complex organisms, which are comprised
                          > > of billions of cells.
                          > >
                          > > The applicability of the idea may be in question, but
                          > > this blue world hasn't yet revealed to me that it isn't
                          > > actually blue.
                          > >
                          > > --jody.
                          >
                          > Hi Jodyji,
                          >
                          > Gravity is science because we can imagine observations
                          > and experiments which would disprove it.
                          > .
                          > Your story of chemical comfort seeking cells must sound
                          > gratuitously anthropomorphic even to you.

                          It's an anthropomorphized view of what goes on there, but
                          that doesn't mean it doesn't describe.

                          Think about it.  Cells are chemical factories.  They need
                          certain precursor molecules which they must acquire or
                          have delivered to them.  They need their products and
                          their waste to be taken away.  A cell's comfort would be
                          the optimization of these conditions.  Conditions that
                          are less than optimal must be accomodated as best as
                          possible, seeking the best configuation for that set of
                          conditions.

                          > I imagine you might say that charged particles which attract
                          > and repel each other depending on the combination of their
                          > positive and negative charges do so for reasons of comfort?

                          Not in a 'human sitting in his easy chair way', but certainly
                          as a 'this is the best state I can obtain under these conditions
                          way' minus the anthropomorphic verbalizations.

                          > And that the planets follow their bliss in orbiting around the
                          > sun.

                          What else can they do?  They've found their places in
                          relationship to their environment, whose largest influence
                          is the gravity of the sun.

                          > I can see the aesthetic appeal of the story line you are
                          > presenting.  It might be a worthwhile competition for the
                          > mythology of the Greek gods.  During the heyday of belief
                          > in these Gods, there was nothing which could disprove
                          > their existence and influence. 
                          >
                          > It's a poetic way of talking and I apologize for trying to talk
                          > you out of it.
                          >
                          > Harvey

                          Don't apologize Harvey.  I really appreciate your comments.
                          You always make good points, and I always learn from the
                          interaction.

                          Of course it's anthropomorphic to say that cells and planets
                          *seek* comfort.  They find their state, whatever that is, in
                          response to environmental conditions.  But functioning systems
                          have a tendency to optimize whenever possible.  They don't
                          need to be alive to do this.  So the planets all spin around
                          the sun, negative particles find positive ones to hook up with,
                          and cells pump out more product when provided with energy
                          and materials.  These activities accept the overlay of the
                          comfort doctrine quite nicely in my view.  I agree that it's
                          just one human's view (with an agenda to make it fit),
                          but that doesn't mean (to me) that it's not a good way of
                          contextualizing it all.

                          I'm not trying to develop a mythology about it, just give
                          a reason why things keep going, and to try to show the
                          general direction they keep going in.

                          --jody.




                          Yahoo! Groups Links


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

                        • Harvey Schneider
                          ... From: jodyrrr To: Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2004 10:04 AM Subject: [Meditation Society
                          Message 12 of 19 , Jan 4, 2004
                            ----- Original Message -----
                            From: "jodyrrr" <jodyrrr@...>
                            To: <meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com>
                            Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2004 10:04 AM
                            Subject: [Meditation Society of America] Re: The cash value of comfort


                            > --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "Harvey Schneider"
                            > <haarvi1@n...> wrote:
                            > >
                            > > ----- Original Message -----
                            > > From: "jodyrrr" <jodyrrr@y...>
                            > > To: <meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com>
                            > > Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2004 12:20 AM
                            > > Subject: [Meditation Society of America] Re: The cash value of comfort
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > > --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "Harvey Schneider"
                            > > > <haarvi1@n...> wrote:
                            > > >
                            > > > [snip]
                            > > >
                            > > > > Hi Jody,
                            [snip]
                            > > > > What is obvious is that if you look through a blue
                            > > > > lens you'll find everything in the world is blue.
                            > > > > Likewise, if you take, interpret or define every kind
                            > > > > of motivation as a kind of comfort seeking, you will
                            > > > > find comfort to be the universal motivator.
                            > > >
                            > > > Of course. But that doesn't mean it isn't true, that
                            > > > the world isn't blue.

                            The reason the world cannot be all blue is because
                            in the absence of any other color the word blue
                            cannot be defined. Its contrast with other colors
                            is what gives it meaning.
                            You cannot have a true statement with a critical word
                            undefined.
                            When you use "comfort seeking" to apply to everything,
                            there is nothing to contrast "comfort seeking" with and
                            define it so that it can be picked out from what is not
                            comfort seeking.
                            The sense it seems to make is similar to the apparent
                            sense of some nonsense verse.
                            Nice poetry, empty metaphysics.
                            Harvey
                          • Bruce Morgen
                            ... From: jodyrrr To: Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2004 10:04 AM Subject: [Meditation Society
                            Message 13 of 19 , Jan 4, 2004
                              Harvey Schneider wrote:
                              ----- Original Message ----- 
                              From: "jodyrrr" <jodyrrr@...>
                              To: <meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com>
                              Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2004 10:04 AM
                              Subject: [Meditation Society of America] Re: The cash value of comfort
                              
                              
                                
                              --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "Harvey  Schneider"
                              <haarvi1@n...> wrote:
                                  
                              ----- Original Message ----- 
                              From: "jodyrrr" <jodyrrr@y...>
                              To: <meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com>
                              Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2004 12:20 AM
                              Subject: [Meditation Society of America] Re: The cash value of comfort
                              
                              
                                    
                              --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "Harvey  Schneider"
                              <haarvi1@n...> wrote:
                              
                              [snip]
                              
                                      
                              Hi Jody,
                                        
                              [snip]
                                
                              What is obvious is that if you look through a blue
                              lens you'll find everything in the world is blue.
                              Likewise, if you take, interpret or define every kind
                              of motivation as a kind of comfort seeking, you will
                              find comfort to be the universal motivator.
                                        
                              Of course.  But that doesn't mean it isn't true, that
                              the world isn't blue.
                                      
                              The reason the world cannot be all blue is because
                              in the absence of any other color the word blue
                              cannot be defined.  Its contrast with other colors
                              is what gives it meaning.
                              You cannot have a true statement with a critical word
                              undefined.
                              When you use "comfort seeking" to apply to everything,
                              there is nothing to contrast "comfort seeking" with and
                              define it so that it can be picked out from what is not
                              comfort seeking.
                              The sense it seems to make is similar to the apparent
                              sense of some nonsense verse.
                              Nice poetry, empty metaphysics.
                              Harvey
                              
                                
                              Well then, just about all
                              "metaphysics" qualify as
                              "bad," eh?
                            • Harvey Schneider
                              ... From: Bruce Morgen To: meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2004 1:44 PM Subject: Re: [Meditation Society of America] Re:
                              Message 14 of 19 , Jan 4, 2004
                                 
                                ----- Original Message -----
                                Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2004 1:44 PM
                                Subject: Re: [Meditation Society of America] Re: The cash value of comfort

                                Harvey Schneider wrote:
                                ----- Original Message ----- 
                                From: "jodyrrr" <jodyrrr@...>
                                To: <meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com>
                                Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2004 10:04 AM
                                Subject: [Meditation Society of America] Re: The cash value of comfort
                                
                                
                                  
                                --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "Harvey  Schneider"
                                <haarvi1@n...> wrote:
                                    
                                ----- Original Message ----- 
                                From: "jodyrrr" <jodyrrr@y...>
                                To: <meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com>
                                Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2004 12:20 AM
                                Subject: [Meditation Society of America] Re: The cash value of comfort
                                
                                
                                      
                                --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "Harvey  Schneider"
                                <haarvi1@n...> wrote:
                                
                                [snip]
                                
                                        
                                Hi Jody,
                                          
                                [snip]
                                  
                                What is obvious is that if you look through a blue
                                lens you'll find everything in the world is blue.
                                Likewise, if you take, interpret or define every kind
                                of motivation as a kind of comfort seeking, you will
                                find comfort to be the universal motivator.
                                          
                                Of course.  But that doesn't mean it isn't true, that
                                the world isn't blue.
                                        
                                The reason the world cannot be all blue is because
                                in the absence of any other color the word blue
                                cannot be defined.  Its contrast with other colors
                                is what gives it meaning.
                                You cannot have a true statement with a critical word
                                undefined.
                                When you use "comfort seeking" to apply to everything,
                                there is nothing to contrast "comfort seeking" with and
                                define it so that it can be picked out from what is not
                                comfort seeking.
                                The sense it seems to make is similar to the apparent
                                sense of some nonsense verse.
                                Nice poetry, empty metaphysics.
                                Harvey
                                
                                  
                                Well then, just about all
                                "metaphysics" qualify as
                                "bad," eh?
                                Hi Bruce,
                                 
                                Without going into detailed case studies
                                of metaphysical systems needed to do
                                full justice to your question, I can say
                                that metaphysical theory which rely on
                                undefined and or undefinable essential
                                terms need repair work to be intelligible.
                                 
                                If you care to bring up specific examples
                                of metaphyical systems, it could be
                                instructive to examine them for
                                intelligibility.
                                 
                                Harvey
                              • Bruce Morgen
                                ... Original Message ----- From: Bruce Morgen To: meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2004 1:44 PM Subject: Re: [Meditation
                                Message 15 of 19 , Jan 4, 2004
                                  Harvey Schneider wrote:
                                   
                                  ----- Original Message -----
                                  Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2004 1:44 PM
                                  Subject: Re: [Meditation Society of America] Re: The cash value of comfort

                                  Harvey Schneider wrote:
                                  ----- Original Message ----- 
                                  From: "jodyrrr" <jodyrrr@...>
                                  To: <meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com>
                                  Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2004 10:04 AM
                                  Subject: [Meditation Society of America] Re: The cash value of comfort
                                  
                                  
                                    
                                  --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "Harvey  Schneider"
                                  <haarvi1@n...> wrote:
                                      
                                  ----- Original Message ----- 
                                  From: "jodyrrr" <jodyrrr@y...>
                                  To: <meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com>
                                  Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2004 12:20 AM
                                  Subject: [Meditation Society of America] Re: The cash value of comfort
                                  
                                  
                                        
                                  --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "Harvey  Schneider"
                                  <haarvi1@n...> wrote:
                                  
                                  [snip]
                                  
                                          
                                  Hi Jody,
                                            
                                  [snip]
                                    
                                  What is obvious is that if you look through a blue
                                  lens you'll find everything in the world is blue.
                                  Likewise, if you take, interpret or define every kind
                                  of motivation as a kind of comfort seeking, you will
                                  find comfort to be the universal motivator.
                                            
                                  Of course.  But that doesn't mean it isn't true, that
                                  the world isn't blue.
                                          
                                  The reason the world cannot be all blue is because
                                  in the absence of any other color the word blue
                                  cannot be defined.  Its contrast with other colors
                                  is what gives it meaning.
                                  You cannot have a true statement with a critical word
                                  undefined.
                                  When you use "comfort seeking" to apply to everything,
                                  there is nothing to contrast "comfort seeking" with and
                                  define it so that it can be picked out from what is not
                                  comfort seeking.
                                  The sense it seems to make is similar to the apparent
                                  sense of some nonsense verse.
                                  Nice poetry, empty metaphysics.
                                  Harvey
                                  
                                    
                                  Well then, just about all
                                  "metaphysics" qualify as
                                  "bad," eh?
                                  Hi Bruce,
                                   
                                  Without going into detailed case studies
                                  of metaphysical systems needed to do
                                  full justice to your question, I can say
                                  that metaphysical theory which rely on
                                  undefined and or undefinable essential
                                  terms need repair work to be intelligible.
                                   
                                  If you care to bring up specific examples
                                  of metaphyical systems, it could be
                                  instructive to examine them for
                                  intelligibility.
                                   
                                  You appear to be implying that
                                  Jodyji's simple puport isn't
                                  intelligible -- is that correct? 
                                  I personally have no particular
                                  interest in "metaphysical
                                  systems" (imo the term is quite
                                  oxymoronic -- since anything
                                  outside the realm of physics is
                                  not objectively measurable, any
                                  such "system" would have to be
                                  subjective in basis and
                                  therefore systematic only in
                                  reference to itself).
                                • Gene Poole
                                  ... Years ago, I observed something similar to what Jody proposes. Rather than mere homeostasis , living things (to include all life forms, including cells)
                                  Message 16 of 19 , Jan 4, 2004
                                    > "jodyrrr" <jodyrrr@y...> wrote:
                                    > > "Harvey Schneider" > <haarvi1@n...> wrote:
                                    > > From: "jodyrrr" <jodyrrr@y...>
                                    > > Subject: Re: The cash value of comfort
                                    > > > > "Harvey Schneider" > > > <haarvi1@n...> wrote:
                                    > > >
                                    > > > [snip]
                                    > > >
                                    > > > > Hi Jody,
                                    > > > > What you say you are doing is science. Observation
                                    > > > > leading to hypothesis, followed by testing.
                                    > > >
                                    > > > Well, yeah. But there is no data. There is an
                                    > > > intellectual overlay on top of raw manifestation
                                    > > > by way of this mind.
                                    > > >
                                    > > > > What is obvious is that if you look through a blue
                                    > > > > lens you'll find everything in the world is blue.
                                    > > > > Likewise, if you take, interpret or define every kind
                                    > > > > of motivation as a kind of comfort seeking, you will
                                    > > > > find comfort to be the universal motivator.
                                    > > >
                                    > > > Of course. But that doesn't mean it isn't true, that
                                    > > > the world isn't blue.
                                    > > >
                                    > > > > Questioning the stake or the comfort motive may
                                    > > > > be useful as an exploratory tool.
                                    > > > > The mistake is to go metaphysical with it and declare
                                    > > > > it - or even raise the possiblity that it is - an invariable
                                    > > > > law which you have discovered in nature.
                                    > > > > Harvey
                                    > > >
                                    > > > I'll consider that. You may be completely correct.
                                    > > >
                                    > > > But why couldn't comfort be like gravity for the
                                    > > > soul, that all beings seek security as a result of this
                                    > > > 'gravity'.
                                    > > >
                                    > > > Look at life at the cellular level. It's all about input
                                    > > > and output and optimizing based on conditions. Really,
                                    > > > seeking chemical comfort. It makes perfect sense to me
                                    > > > that this cellular seeking of comfort has been extrapolated
                                    > > > into the universe of complex organisms, which are comprised
                                    > > > of billions of cells.
                                    > > >
                                    > > > The applicability of the idea may be in question, but
                                    > > > this blue world hasn't yet revealed to me that it isn't
                                    > > > actually blue.
                                    > > >
                                    > > > --jody.
                                    > >
                                    > > Hi Jodyji,
                                    > >
                                    > > Gravity is science because we can imagine observations
                                    > > and experiments which would disprove it.
                                    > > .
                                    > > Your story of chemical comfort seeking cells must sound
                                    > > gratuitously anthropomorphic even to you.
                                    >
                                    > It's an anthropomorphized view of what goes on there, but
                                    > that doesn't mean it doesn't describe.
                                    >
                                    > Think about it. Cells are chemical factories. They need
                                    > certain precursor molecules which they must acquire or
                                    > have delivered to them. They need their products and
                                    > their waste to be taken away. A cell's comfort would be
                                    > the optimization of these conditions. Conditions that
                                    > are less than optimal must be accomodated as best as
                                    > possible, seeking the best configuation for that set of
                                    > conditions.
                                    >
                                    > > I imagine you might say that charged particles which attract
                                    > > and repel each other depending on the combination of their
                                    > > positive and negative charges do so for reasons of comfort?
                                    >
                                    > Not in a 'human sitting in his easy chair way', but certainly
                                    > as a 'this is the best state I can obtain under these conditions
                                    > way' minus the anthropomorphic verbalizations.
                                    >
                                    > > And that the planets follow their bliss in orbiting around the
                                    > > sun.
                                    >
                                    > What else can they do? They've found their places in
                                    > relationship to their environment, whose largest influence
                                    > is the gravity of the sun.
                                    >
                                    > > I can see the aesthetic appeal of the story line you are
                                    > > presenting. It might be a worthwhile competition for the
                                    > > mythology of the Greek gods. During the heyday of belief
                                    > > in these Gods, there was nothing which could disprove
                                    > > their existence and influence.
                                    > >
                                    > > It's a poetic way of talking and I apologize for trying to talk
                                    > > you out of it.
                                    > >
                                    > > Harvey
                                    >
                                    > Don't apologize Harvey. I really appreciate your comments.
                                    > You always make good points, and I always learn from the
                                    > interaction.
                                    >
                                    > Of course it's anthropomorphic to say that cells and planets
                                    > *seek* comfort. They find their state, whatever that is, in
                                    > response to environmental conditions. But functioning systems
                                    > have a tendency to optimize whenever possible. They don't
                                    > need to be alive to do this. So the planets all spin around
                                    > the sun, negative particles find positive ones to hook up with,
                                    > and cells pump out more product when provided with energy
                                    > and materials. These activities accept the overlay of the
                                    > comfort doctrine quite nicely in my view. I agree that it's
                                    > just one human's view (with an agenda to make it fit),
                                    > but that doesn't mean (to me) that it's not a good way of
                                    > contextualizing it all.
                                    >
                                    > I'm not trying to develop a mythology about it, just give
                                    > a reason why things keep going, and to try to show the
                                    > general direction they keep going in.
                                    >
                                    > --jody.

                                    Years ago, I observed something similar
                                    to what Jody proposes.

                                    Rather than 'mere homeostasis', living 'things'
                                    (to include all life forms, including cells) move
                                    toward _pleasure_. This prompted me to conceptualize
                                    what I call, the 'compass of pleasure'.

                                    'Mere homeostasis' is itself a high goal, given
                                    the many potentially fatal challenges presented
                                    to living organisms. But it seems that Life is 'not content'
                                    with mere contentment; and the seeking of pleasure,
                                    not just comfort, is the means to achieve 'optimization'
                                    of occupation of one's niche in the biosphere.

                                    An organism which attains 'pleasure', obtains that
                                    reward by means of exercising capability; and it is
                                    the exercise of capability, which results in that talent
                                    becoming strong and always available. In other words,
                                    success in attaining pleasure, rewards effort and
                                    strengthens existing capabilities.

                                    So I think Jody is correct in this issue; at root of
                                    his assertion, is an unstated assertion of homeostasis
                                    as a life-sustaining principle; and he points out, using
                                    the word 'comfort', that there is a certain 'bias' which
                                    serves to 'adjust' homeostasis to a fine degree of
                                    success. One could say, that such a bias will assure
                                    that homeostatic motion 'exceeds' the minimum,
                                    and thus, makes more 'room' or 'space' within the
                                    range of 'ideal' states.

                                    Moreover, it is my observation, that the 'pleasure/pain'
                                    axis, serves as a dynamic criteria for success of any
                                    biological organism; the ultimate result of avoidance
                                    of pain, and attainment of pleasure, results in less
                                    wear and tear, less upkeep, and therefore, is seen as
                                    a primary 'conservator' of energy. 'Optimization',
                                    which represents 'more than the minimum requirement'
                                    needed for survival, assures success in competitions
                                    between organisms which vie for occupation of a
                                    given niche in the biosphere.

                                    Recently recompiled researches, point out that we
                                    are looking at much more, than 'survival of the fittest';
                                    we are actually seeing, a deeper principle; 'the happiest
                                    are the fittest'. Contentment, comfort and pleasure are
                                    now being considered as primary components of survival,
                                    and those, represent 'effortless response to evolutionary
                                    stressors'. From a Darwinian POV, the conquest of pain,
                                    equals adaptation to potentially fatal challenge; survivors
                                    are thus embodied with a reward system, which is the
                                    sheer pleasure of being alive!


                                    ==Gene Poole==
                                  • jodyrrr
                                    ... wrote: [snip] ... You re the man Gene. It would appear that this idea s time has arrived. Grab a chair, sit back, and enjoy the show.
                                    Message 17 of 19 , Jan 4, 2004
                                      --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Poole"
                                      <gene_poole@q...> wrote:

                                      [snip]

                                      > Recently recompiled researches, point out that we
                                      > are looking at much more, than 'survival of the fittest';
                                      > we are actually seeing, a deeper principle; 'the happiest
                                      > are the fittest'. Contentment, comfort and pleasure are
                                      > now being considered as primary components of survival,
                                      > and those, represent 'effortless response to evolutionary
                                      > stressors'. From a Darwinian POV, the conquest of pain,
                                      > equals adaptation to potentially fatal challenge; survivors
                                      > are thus embodied with a reward system, which is the
                                      > sheer pleasure of being alive!
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > ==Gene Poole==

                                      You're the man Gene.

                                      It would appear that this idea's time has arrived.

                                      Grab a chair, sit back, and enjoy the show. Things are
                                      going to get mighty interesting as this poop hits the fan.

                                      --jody.
                                    • Harvey Schneider
                                      Note: a second attempt to make the conversational parts clear through selective boldfacing. Hi Jody, What is obvious is that if you look through a blue lens
                                      Message 18 of 19 , Jan 5, 2004
                                        Note: a second attempt to make the conversational parts
                                        clear through selective boldfacing.
                                         
                                        Hi Jody,
                                                  
                                        What is obvious is that if you look through a blue
                                        lens you'll find everything in the world is blue.
                                        Likewise, if you take, interpret or define every kind
                                        of motivation as a kind of comfort seeking, you will
                                        find comfort to be the universal motivator.
                                                 
                                        Of course.  But that doesn't mean it isn't true, that
                                        the world isn't blue.
                                               
                                         
                                        The reason the world cannot be all blue is because
                                        in the absence of any other color the word blue
                                        cannot be defined.  Its contrast with other colors
                                        is what gives it meaning.
                                        You cannot have a true statement with a critical word
                                        undefined.
                                        When you use "comfort seeking" to apply to everything,
                                        there is nothing to contrast "comfort seeking" with and
                                        define it so that it can be picked out from what is not
                                        comfort seeking.
                                        The sense it seems to make is similar to the apparent
                                        sense of some nonsense verse.
                                        Nice poetry, empty metaphysics.
                                        Harvey
                                         
                                         
                                        Well then, just about all
                                        "metaphysics" qualify as
                                        "bad," eh?
                                         
                                         
                                        Hi Bruce,
                                         
                                        Without going into detailed case studies
                                        of metaphysical systems needed to do
                                        full justice to your question, I can say
                                        that metaphysical theory which rely on
                                        undefined and or undefinable essential
                                        terms need repair work to be intelligible.
                                         
                                        If you care to bring up specific examples
                                        of metaphyical systems, it could be
                                        instructive to examine them for
                                        intelligibility.
                                         
                                        Harvey
                                         
                                         
                                        You appear to be implying that
                                        Jodyji's simple puport isn't
                                        intelligible -- is that correct?
                                         
                                        Yes.  It sounds intelligible, because he is using
                                        the word "comfort" which we all understand.  But
                                        he is using "comfort" in an new way which he doesn't
                                        define.  If he ever gets around to defining this new
                                        sense of "comfort", showing what it includes and what
                                        it excludes, then we can have another look.
                                         
                                        I personally have no particular
                                        interest in "metaphysical
                                        systems" (imo the term is quite
                                        oxymoronic -- since anything
                                        outside the realm of physics is
                                        not objectively measurable, any
                                        such "system" would have to be
                                        subjective in basis and
                                        therefore systematic only in
                                        reference to itself).
                                         
                                        The Comfort Doctrine in its current formulation is
                                        similar to the Phlogiston Doctrine which posited
                                        a hypotheical substance released as flame in combustion.
                                        Even though no one now believes that Phlogiston is
                                        needed to explain combustion, its existence has never
                                        been disproved.
                                         
                                        Like Phlogiston, the Comfort Factor, is not objectively
                                        measurable.  Its right up there with hobgoblins and
                                        gremlins.  If metaphysics is not the right word, perhaps
                                        you can supply a more exact one.
                                         
                                         
                                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.