Re: [Meditation Society of America] Re: The cash value of comfort
- Note: a second attempt to make the conversational partsclear 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
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
The sense it seems to make is similar to the apparent
sense of some nonsense verse.
Nice poetry, empty metaphysics.
Well then, just about all
"metaphysics" qualify as
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
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
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.