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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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.