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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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.