When I wrote
here that there is an "I," I did not mean to contradict the Buddhist anatta (no soul) teaching. I do not believe that each psychophysical organism is conscious only because it interacts with a permanently enduring immaterial entity but I do agree with Kant that coherent experience is possible only if disparate sensory inputs are unified into discrete perceptions, generating the thought: "
I see/hear/perceive that." This "transcendental unity of apperception" does not entail a metaphysical soul. In this sense, I think that Joelle is right to deny that there is an "I" and the Buddha was right to deny that there is a soul.
Poul Anderson's texts are a springboard to discuss anything and everything.
Tonight our clocks gain an hour and tomorrow is Mothers' Day. We have two mothers in our immediate family. I will be away from the computer for much of tomorrow.
16 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
And there are other arguments about the mind/body problem which came to opposite conclusions to the ones favored by you or Buddha.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Well, of course!
Look, we can have more common ground than we sometimes let ourselves have. When arguments become very entrenched and polarized, I tend to respond to "No, you're wrong" with "No, you're wrong" etc. In particular, I thought that the proposition that there is a "darkness" in everyone was too vague and in any case seemed to imply that this "darkness" was ineradicable whereas I regard nothing as unchangeable. However, of course, I recognize that there are problems within people as well as between them. That is why I meditate. The Buddha taught that "greed, hate and delusion" make the world go round, almost literally. I think that human "greed, hate and delusion" come from animal pleasure, pain and consciousness nd can be transmuted into nonattachment, compassion and wisdom. In any case, something can be done about them. They are not just permanently, ineradicably there - because nothing is.
Quite frankly, from this point of view, I think that my upbringing and schooling were appalling. I emerged into adulthood guilt-tripped, ignorant, insensitive, confused, unconfident, not what my parents and educators/indoctrinators wanted people like me to turn into. We were supposed to confirm and to become the next generation of respectable, conservative (small "c") lawyers, doctors, politicians, clergy etc. I took a long time to rethink everything and wound up completely different. I would have been far better with a completely different upbringing and I think that that can, not necessarily will, happen for more people in future.
Paul.
AND can be transmuted...
supposed to CONFORM
Kaor, Paul!
And I was thinking more of alternatives, in philosophy, like the moderate dualism expounded by Mortimer Adler in books like THE DIFFERENCE OF MAN AND THE DIFFERENCE IT MAKES.
And I see nothing wrong in what your parents or grandparents wanted: becoming small "c" conservatives, lawyers, physicians, accountants, carpenters, plumbers, etc. And I would understand "guilt tripping" as meaning we should have no illusions about ourselves or others. And thus dismissing Utopian illusions.
And that, btw, was basically Anderson's view as well.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Well, the guilt-tripping was not about having Utopian illusions!
I wound up questioning, then "dismissing," just about everything they said.
Paul.
BTW, my main point here was just to correct the wrong impression that I gave by rejecting the idea of "darkness" within people.
Kaor, Paul!
I was thinking of "guilt tripping" in the sense that we should be aware of how easy it is to do bad things.
And that "darkness" all humans have is real.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Of course we should be aware of that.
I have acknowledged that there are problems within people as well as between them.
None of this addresses the problems in education that I mentioned.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
As far as "education" goes I have wondered if a return to the Medieval course of studies called the Trivium and Quadrivium, suitably updated, would be better than the corrupted mess we have in the US. The Trivium would focus on basics like grammar, logic, and rhetoric while the Quadrivium concentrated on more advanced studies.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
My main point was that I think that the problems within people, which I acknowledge, can be exacerbated by their upbringing and education and this was certainly so in my case. I have known people who were much better as persons for having had a completely different education. If I had been content to conform and not to question, then I might have found my upbringing more congenial. My daughter is quite frankly much better than I ever was.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
That cannot change what I believe is a fact, we are all imperfect and flawed. Something which cannot be removed merely by "education."
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
It is not a fact that we are imperfect and flawed. But we have inner psychological problems which, of course, cannot be removed only by "education." I do not agree that anything about "education" is "mere." It makes an enormous difference how people are educated, trained, indoctrinated etc. Some men are brought up to regard women as inferior. Other men are brought up to regard women as their equals. An enormous difference. Not the single decisive difference, of course - no one factor is that -, but an enormous difference.
I have never said that ""mere" education alone will transform mankind. I feel that points that have already been made are so downplayed that they are forgotten. I have talked about:
technological production of enormous wealth;
every single member of society as an equal shareholder in the common wealth;
the qualitatively different perspective of people who grow up in a culture where there is no longer any expectation that they will have to compete for employment or will have to work for someone else to make a living;
as part of this, an educational and health system that does not mass produce literate, numerate, disciplined, healthy employees but that identifies and develops the interests and abilities of each individual across an entire range of interests, not expecting everyone to be a creative genius - at least not in the early generations who knows what the further future might hold?
Of course I know by now how you will respond to all this but my present point is only that you keep saying things that take us right back to the start of the argument as if we had never been through it all before.
Apart from just repeating again each particular part of the argument as it recurs, we need some ability to stand back and assess the argument as a whole.
The premise, "imperfect and flawed," has to be defended. We came into existence by a process of active change so there is nothing unchanging anywhere in us, in life or on Earth. Future changes might very well be for the worse, unfortunately, but they will be changes - not human beings, having arrived in their present state, suddenly ceasing to change and remaining as we are now forevermore. No way.
Paul.
Sean,
It is also my assessment by now that you are so committed to a particular set of beliefs that you cannot understand any contrary view. Any such view is wrong by definition and that is the beginning and the end of the matter which is why we continually find ourselves back at a restatement of your premise.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I do understand, I simply don't believe them to be true. I could say the same of your beliefs but I won't. The real issue is we have irreconcilable premises.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
You could say it but I don't just repeat premises as if no counterarguments had been offered.
Paul.
Post a Comment