In Poul Anderson's The Devil's Game, Sunderland Haverner studied psychology, covering:
Descartes
Leibniz
Locke
Charcot
Binet
Freud (see image)
I class the first three as philosophers.
Not mired in medieval superstition, Haverner knows his:
Channing
Huxley (Julian?)
Spencer
Nietzsche (that spelling always foxes me: "...zsc...")
The chapter entitled SUNDERLAND HAVERNER, pp. 42-57, is extremely rich and will generate more than one post. Good night.
From delusion, lead us to truth.
From darkness, lead us to light.
16 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
While I agree with the lines you quoted at the end of this blog piece, I fear many of us will have varying or contradictions of what is truth, delusion, light, darkness, etc.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
That prayer, adapted from an Upanishad, is an aspiration towards contemplative insight, not towards the acceptance of any particular doctrinal system.
Paul.
Contemplatives from different traditions recognize and acknowledge each other despite doctrinal differences.
Kaor, Paul!
But I don't think all contemplative traditions will necessarily be good. E.g., I can imagine, using Stirling's THE PESHAWAR LANCERS, some devotees of the horrible religion of the Peacock Angel, contemplating as their ultimate "good," the purest possible evil, that the greatest "good" would be to be in hell tormenting others or being tormented. And that the best way to please Satan is to bring about the end of all vile, disgusting, loathsome physical life on Earth.
And, to me, the trouble with non-theistic contemplative traditions like those found in Buddhism, is how vague and unfocused they seem. Contemplation makes more SENSE if focused on SOMETHING as the final Good or ultimate end.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
We focus on the present moment.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
But the "present moment" is not the final Good or ultimate end.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I think that awareness of the present is the final good. There is no ultimate end for consciousness because means and ends exist only within consciousness.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And, that, unfortunately, is where I have to disagree with you. Because I do believe the consciousness we have survives bodily death.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Even if consciousness survives, I will still think that present awareness is the final good and that consciousness has no end outside itself.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And I simply can't agree with that. It comes down to eternal navel gazing! The idea that the ultimate good is awareness of one's existence is logically unsatisfactory.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But I didn't say, "...of one's own existence." We remain alert to everything, not just to our own navels. There is no logical necessity that an entity which you identify as "the ultimate good" exists. The ontological argument is invalid.
Paul.
If my consciousness survives death, then I will practice present awareness in a hereafter.
Kaor, Paul!
And I believe your consciousness will be focusing on many other things as well.
Ad astra! Sean
BTW, it’s been fairly conclusively demonstrated that Freud knew that he was lying when he came up with the theory that the memories of incest so many of his patients were relating to him were overwhelmingly false, and instead were projections of their own incestuous fantasies.
He wrecked a lot of people’s lives with that.
(His original contention that they were telling the truth made him -very unpopular-.)
Our Fraud.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
My vague recollection is that Freud is discredited these days, and justly so!
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment