On Wed, 16 Sep 1998 18:23:37 +0100 Chris Lees <[log in to unmask]>
writes:

>Hello again Bjorn, [who wrote:]
>
>> Why do you feel the need to defend yourself? If someone doesn't like 
>> what you
>> have to say, then it's perfectly simple to delete your mail. To 
>> unsub
>> because of the tone in a couple of mails is an overreaction that 
>> says more
>> about the unsubber then the mails in question. Hence, no need to 
>> excuse yourself.
>
>I agree.  I have spent plenty of time with uncouth ruffians who enjoyed
>upsetting people.  As I get older, I find I prefer politeness and good
>manners.

You must have aged a lot since you wrote "bullshit" twice on 31 August.. 
Be that as it might, maybe you are laboring under some self-delusion. 
Maybe you don't know yourself as well as you think you do.

In that same posting, you said: " I find macho ego battles tedious and
pathetic.  But I have a kind nature, so I disregard your fighting
metaphors..."  Now you say: "I find I prefer politelness and good
manners".  But your postings in response to mine and others seem to
reflect a somwhat different personality.

[cut] 
> 
>> >It appears to me that Jesse misconstrues and misrepresents 
>> >everything that I say.
>> 
>> Well, I for one think that Jesse's questions are quite legitimate 
>> most of
>> the time. If someone on this list postulates a certain pack of 
>> truths, then
>> it must be ok for anyone to disagree and question that particular 
>> pack of
>> truths. I do understand that you feel intimidated by Jesse's style 
>> of
>> reasoning, but that style is the same style that you will meet on 
>> most mail
>> lists, as well in the seminar room. And why bother? If he is a jerk, 
>> well, that's his problem, not yours.
>
>I agree again.  But I don't think that I feel in the least intimidated 
>by Jesse, or anyone else.

That sounds pretty "macho" to me.

>I just find the endless repetitions of that style of
>exchange to be boring and counterproductive.

If it is so boring, why do you engage in it?  As for "
counterproductive", over the years I have found it to be very productive.
 Anything that makes you think has to be productive, if you have an open
mind that is.  If your mind is closed, nothing is productive, everything
is "counterproductive".

>What good purpose is served by a
>diversion, for example, into my opinion of what Descartes meant versus 
>Jesse's opinion of what Descartes meant?

First, if it was a diversion, it was your diversion.  You brought it up,
I didn't.

Second, it was not just my opinion of "What Descartes meant".  I offerred
you a reference citation to specialist opinion.  Furthermore, I quoted
another souce, which I failed to cite.  It was:

Honderich, Ted, ed.; *The Oxford Companion to Philosphy*; Oxford
University Press, Oxford; 1995

You offerred nothing in support of your opinion--not even a good
argument.

>I doubt that we would ever agree [cut]
>If I truly believed that Jesse could help me to a deeper understanding
>of something that interested me, then I'd invite him to help me.

Somehow, I find that insincere.  Somehow, I doubt that your "macho ego"
would let you "invite" me to do anything for you.

[cut]
> 
>> No. A better way is to use your opponents ideas as a way to increase 
>> the
>> power of your own ideas. View your opponent as a friend that mirrors 
>> the weaknesses in your own reasoning. Listen to it. Ask yourself if
the 
>> critique is relevant. Admit that there might be soft spots in your
ideas. 
>> Then mend
>> what is broken in your chain of ideas. Thus, critical response 
>> should be viewed as a positive response. 
>
>I understand this.  I understand aikido.  I am my opponent.  But thanks
for
>the enlightening remark.

Now, that *does* sound insincere.  If you already understood it, why
thank him for the "enlightening remark"?  Instead, if you already
understood it, maybe you should have thanked him for reminding you of
something you had lost sight of.

[cut]
>
>> >This is the crux of the problem.  If there is no 
>> >final, decisive, authorative,
>> >impartial interpretation of any text, whether it be my e-mail or 
>> >the Bible
>> >or Descartes or any other written item, then where does that leave 
>> >us?

Why does there have to be a "final, decisive, authoritative" (please note
spelling) interpretation of anything?  It seems to me that the very
nature of interpretation precludes there being such.  And I find that a
very comfortable situation--it allows me to make up my own mind (and to
change it as I see fit). 

As to "where does that leave us?", right where it always has (except in
authoritarian and totalitarian circumstances) and, hopefully, always
will--in freedom.  I like that.

[cut]
> 
>> >That, as I understand it,is the essence of the problem which 
>> >postmodernism poses
>> >to world civilisation: whose meaning or which meaning is THE 
>> >meaning?  No objective 'truth' as a reference point anymore.

There never was, not even in an authoritarian or totalitarian context. 
Why do you pine for what never was and never will be? 

>> >except for the Absolutists, they
>> >who will insist that their 'truth' is the truth just because they 
>> >say it is.

That sounds like somebody I have come to know to some extent.  I leave it
to your imagination as to who that might be.

[cut
> 
>Like Nietzsche's madman, I cry out
>that God is dead and that you all killed him, but I arrive too early.

Too early for what?  Sounds to me as if you arrived too late if he/she/it
is already dead.

[cut]
> 
>I hear on the radio that telepathy is now proven by science,
>that a person in deep meditation can have their
>mind stimulated, and a second person at a distance will have a 
>simultaneous event,
>all recordable by the latest scientific gadgetry.  Presumably this has 
>been written up 
>in a scientific paper somewhere.  I can't help with that, but the
details 
>were explained by a reputable mainstream psychiatrist.

First, "science" can't and doesn't attempt to "prove" anything.  The only
proofs of anything are found in logic and mathematics.  What "science"
does is to attempt to come up with falsifiable hypotheses, which then
becomes a theory if the evidence supports (not "proves") it.

Second, people have been trying to "prove" the hypothesis that telepathy
exists for the better part of this century, at least, and, time and time
again, "science" has falsified that hypothesis.  What makes you think
that "the latest scientific gadgetry" has changed anything?

Third, "a reputable mainstream psychiatrist" hardly qualifies as a
"scientist", let alone the entire "science" establishment.  Psychiatrists
are physicians, albeit physicians of the psyche, not physicists.

>This would seem to indicate that consciousness, at least at the levels
>encountered in meditation, is, or can be a distributed function.There 
>are many 
>mentions of such things in the traditional teachings.  Maybe science can

>learn something about the practical applications of that 'new discovery'

>from the zen tradition.

I dare say "science" is and has been well aware of whatever the Zen
tradition has to offer it.  After all, Zen is nothing new and has been
well publicized over the years.

Jesse S. Cook III

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%