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 10:42 PM Subject: [Meditation Society
    Message 1 of 19 , Jan 3, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      ----- 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 2 of 19 , Jan 3, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        --- 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 3 of 19 , Jan 3, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          --- 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 4 of 19 , Jan 3, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            ----- 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 5 of 19 , Jan 4, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              --- 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 6 of 19 , Jan 4, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                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 7 of 19 , Jan 4, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  ----- 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 8 of 19 , Jan 4, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    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 9 of 19 , Jan 4, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                       
                      ----- 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 10 of 19 , Jan 4, 2004
                      • 0 Attachment
                        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 11 of 19 , Jan 4, 2004
                        • 0 Attachment
                          > "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 12 of 19 , Jan 4, 2004
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- 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 13 of 19 , Jan 5, 2004
                            • 0 Attachment
                              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.