Philosophy, Plato, Objective Realism, Truth, Beauty, and ALL that other Stuff
Edward-Yemíl Rosario
There's nothing like trying to stay up on a philosophical dialogue: it's like
watching a ping pong game. Anyway, Plato fuckin sold out. However, he did offer
an excellent metaphor (probably stole it) that I feel fits quite nicely here.
You know, the one in The Republic? Anyway, Plato compared our perception of
reality to a bunch of cave dwellers who, chained facing the back wall, can only
conjecture on the passing shadows of the procession going on "outside." Unable
to free themselves, they mistake the shadows (concepts) for the phenomena.
Plato was partly right in this instance (anything he said about his mentor is
probably pure caca). The way the mind and brain work we more than likely
construct reality than actually percieve it. From an evolutionary standpoint,
this is a good thing. If we were to take the time to minutely analyze
everything, we wouldn't have been extinct a long time ago ("should I eat it, or
will it eat me?"). Besides, it is impossible to be conscious of all that life is
offering us from moment-to-moment.
In order for the brain not to be overwhelmed by the constant deluge of sensory
input, some sort of filtering system must enable us to pay attention to what our
Mind/Body deems important and what it deems to ignore.. Our EMOTIONS decide
what's worth paying attention to. While I've heard some rather disparaging
remarks about traditonal wisdom (the misnomer "New Age"), cutting edge science
seems to be validating rather than putting to rest age-old notions.
What we know today about the brain (the organ) and the mind (what it does) is
still not a lot. But with the advent of new imaging technology, we are now
opening up many areas and RESOLVING age long philosophical disputes through
science. One of the first casualties was Cartesian duality, for example: the
mind/body connection has been strongly established through the discovery
emotion-carrying peptides. In actuality, the brain is a "movable feast" taking
place throughout the body and not just in the "head."
In terms of what we percieve, we now know that only 20% of what we "see"
actually comes from the eyes. The main area that regulates "seeing" is actually
a dynamic process, with the brain communicating with the eyes and vice versa. It
was once thought that what we saw was an interpretation of light bouncing off of
objects, not so. We "construct" these images from "templates." Similar dynamics
take place with the other "main" sense, hearing.
This kinda gives a different twist to "objective" reality. Since our sensing of
the outer world is filtered through "chemical" (peptides) brain reactions, each
with a different emotional tone, how can we objectively define what's "real" and
what's not "real"? How much does our conditioning or cultural upbringing play in
this process ( according to the new science, A LOT)?
To get back to Plato, what he said was that in order to live fully, we must
break the chains that constrain our perceptions and thoughts. We must get past
the shadows on the wall and out into the light of day and see the "procession"
itself.
This brings me back to the Post Structuralists, who began by saying there was no
objective reality (which Foucault later rescinded). The postmodernist (and
please, no PoMo bashing. PoMo is not ONE philosophical school) watershed was
right in bringing the focus on to what the "mapmaker" was bringing to the "map."
The first step to breaking the chains is to admit that they exist and taking
into consideration the cultural baggage we ALL bring to the table. It was a good
thing for science. In fact, new avenues and ways of seeing were given a
legitamcy that helped create a broader range of knowledge.
But if you study the origianl post structuralist stance, there is a grave
error: a performative contradiction. If you say there is no objective reality,
isn't that then an absolute statement? How would you like to go around with a
philosophy that states no absolutes through an absolute dictum. While the
intention of the post structuralists was noble: taking away power from an
entrenched orthodoxy, they did so in way that, in the end, is more oppressive.
This statement on reality, posits the the speaker in a position of authority
that is even more oppressive than the system it intends to buck.
But you can't throw out the postmodern baby with the bathwater because after
postmodernism, you can never ignore the "mapmaker" again. No fuckin body drops
down from the sky with a clean slate (tabula rasa) with the superhuman ability
to objectively define phenomena, Besides, legitimate science, replicated across
time, is starting to uphold the postmodern perspective. so we can't go back to
Descates. Not without devolving in the process (unfortuantely, most of the
scientific community is still mired Cartesian orthodoxy, but that's another
rant).
Some have proposed a less mitlitant post modernism that attempts to look at
phenomena from an evolutionary perspective. For example, while the social
construction of motherhood and fatherhood is culturally derived and not an a
priori, you still won't run into cultures where there's a "social construction"
of fathers getting pregnant. Or a society where apples fall upwards. These
evolutionary and biological parameters, however, are broad patterns that still
leave alot to to our innate abilities of our higher thinking systems.
So, you say, what the fuck does this have to do with freakin music?!? Well (if
you're still there) for one thing we can attempt to use this model to look at
what overarching patterns appear across cultures and time. All languages are
apparrently evolved for the same 60 or so phonemes. Is there a similar
corrollary for music? Apparently so. but this starts to get really technical and
sticky and, after the dust has settled, we're still left with rather broad
ranges to deal with.
What about Beauty? What exists that "shadow" across cultures that can be
construed as a legitmate pattern? This brings to mind Monk's (?) composition
"Ugly Beauty." I think here we have to deal from a contextualized perspective.
Each and every cutlural art form needs to be understood from a perspective that
takes its cultural values into account. Far from being, as the conservative
backlash would have us believe, a "dumbing" down of Art, Truth, and Beauty, this
approach takes into consideration factors otherwise missing from other
approaches. Do the values that make a great Jazz musician jibe with the values
that make a great classical musician? Are African-derived musics "primitive," as
early eurocentric scentists would have us believe? AND, if you propose that
there is ONE measure to take these myriad factors into consideration, to what
cultural perspective(s) are you going to subscribe to?
I think that we can't throw away the postmodern baby with the bathwater.
Otherwise, we ultimately find ourselves positing one world view as superior to
others. But I've ranted for far too long and I didn't even get into what I
really wanted to (propose such a measure that would take overarching patterns
into considertation). I even short changed Descartes and Foulcault and I didn't
even connect quantum physics and Heisenberg's Uncertainty and.....
Peace Out,
Edward-Yemíl Rosario
"What moron said knowledge is power? Knowledge is power only if it
doesn't depress you so much that it leaves you in an immobile heap
at the end of your bed"
- Paula Poundstone
Gregory F. Pappas
do I find. A few fast comments:
Edward-Yemíl Rosario wrote:
> The way the mind and brain work we more than likely
> construct reality than actually percieve it.
This was Kant's view.
>From an evolutionary standpoint,
> this is a good thing. If we were to take the time to minutely analyze
> everything, we wouldn't have been extinct a long time ago ("should I eat it, or
> will it eat me?"). Besides, it is impossible to be conscious of all that life is
> offering us from moment-to-moment.
This has been called "selectivity" and the genius that first realy talks
about this is William James (in the Principles of Psychology). One does
not need to believe in the Darwianin theory-crap to hold this view.
>But with the advent of new imaging technology, we are now
> opening up many areas and RESOLVING age long philosophical disputes through
> science. One of the first casualties was Cartesian duality, for example: the
> mind/body connection has been strongly established through the discovery
> emotion-carrying peptides.
Right...Science has helped dissolve old philosophical dualism but it is
hardly the arbiter of what is real and what is not. Moral and aesthetics
qualities are as real as any of the quantifiable objects of science even
if there is considerable disagreement about them.
This was John Dewey's view (my philosophical papi).
> This kinda gives a different twist to "objective" reality. Since our sensing of
> the outer world is filtered through "chemical" (peptides) brain reactions, each
> with a different emotional tone, how can we objectively define what's "real" and
> what's not "real"? How much does our conditioning or cultural upbringing play in
> this process ( according to the new science, A LOT)?
>
Of course it is "filtered" but there is no "outer" world that we can
never get to. You are pressuposing a dualism inner/outer
...subjective/objective. All experience is conditioned in the sense you
described...so what? it does not follow that we should adopt
subjectivism or "every thing goes" views (a la Postmodernism). You have
the option to follow Dewey and James.
>
> This brings me back to the Post Structuralists, who began by saying there was no
> objective reality (which Foucault later rescinded). The postmodernist (and
> please, no PoMo bashing. PoMo is not ONE philosophical school) watershed was
> right in bringing the focus on to what the "mapmaker" was bringing to the "map."
> The first step to breaking the chains is to admit that they exist and taking
> into consideration the cultural baggage we ALL bring to the table. It was a good
> thing for science. In fact, new avenues and ways of seeing were given a
> legitamcy that helped create a broader range of knowledge.
>
> But if you study the origianl post structuralist stance, there is a grave
> error: a performative contradiction. If you say there is no objective reality,
> isn't that then an absolute statement? How would you like to go around with a
> philosophy that states no absolutes through an absolute dictum. While the
> intention of the post structuralists was noble: taking away power from an
> entrenched orthodoxy, they did so in way that, in the end, is more oppressive.
Where Postructualist and Postmoderninst are traveling today, james and
Dewey traveled a long time ago (1910's) but without the problems that
you mentioned and without the cultural relativism. I am serious you
would dig those guys!! they are like jazz!
Gregory "el tejazzrican"
Dennis M. Reed "Califa"
say in this posting.
I might add that one of the attempts to get at objective reality or
total freedom is yoga and that with all that is involved in that
pursuit, one of the little known statements (possibly occult teaching)
of one (some?) yoga masters is something to the effect "that after
mastering yoga to break the iron chains of subjective reality, the final
step in reaching objective reality is to break the golden chains of
yoga".
--
"it ain't where you're from, it's where you're at" - Eric B. & Rakim
1980s
or 1990s (but stolen from someone in New Orleans in the 70s or
before!)?
"If the music grooves, it does not matter who is playing!" - Califa 1999
Dennis M. Reed "Califa"
My Home Page, last updated 05/15/99, includes my musical
autobiography (which includes many personal audio files
of groups I worked with beginning in the 1960s including
rare recordings by Carlos Federico and early photos including
Celia Cruz and Pete Escovedo; 1998 photos of Willie Colón),
and selected LP and CD recordings which had major influence
on my musical development. It also includes information
regarding the PC WIN 95/98 US-International Keyboard
with a large printable U.S.International Keyboard image.
http://www.dmreed.com, if that does not work, try:
http://www.geocities.com/~dmreed
Edward-Yemíl Rosario
>Woow Eddie!! I come to this place to get away from philosophy and what
>do I find. A few fast comments:
<snip>
All those years shooting dope, hanging out at libraries and listening to way out
jazz does that to you...
>Edward-Yem=EDl Rosario wrote:
>> The way the mind and brain work we more than likely
>> construct reality than actually percieve it. =
>
>
>This was Kant's view.
<snip>
In a way it is, but most of the stuff coming out I'm refering to can be traced
back to Nietsche. Everybody's on Nietche's dick these days...
>>From an evolutionary standpoint,
>> this is a good thing. If we were to take the time to minutely analyze
>> everything, we wouldn't have been extinct a long time ago ("should I ea=
>t it, or
>> will it eat me?"). Besides, it is impossible to be conscious of all tha=
>t life is
>> offering us from moment-to-moment.
>
>This has been called "selectivity" and the genius that first realy talks
>about this is William James (in the Principles of Psychology). One does
>not need to believe in the Darwianin theory-crap to hold this view.
<snip>
Darwin has been misinterpreted to death. but you can't deny the evolutionary
patterns inherrent in our makeup. In fact, the evolutionary "arrow" is in direct
contradiction to the major dicta of that hardest of sciences: physics. Instead
of abating, the direction of evolution is toward creating increasingly more
complicated and sophisticated systems. What odes that say about Spirit?
Being primarily involved in the study of Eastern and Western psychology, I'm a
great fan of James' Pragmatism. During a lecture at Harvard James stopped when
he saw a visiting theravadan Buddhist monk in the audience and invited the man
to the podium. He gave up the lectern and told the audience, "this man is more
qualified than I to talk about psychology. This is the psychology all you will
be studying 20 years from now." Unfortunately, James's prophesy was not true:
western psychology went the way of radical behaviorism and psychoanalysis. I see
myself as an object relations man with a transpersonal perspective.
>>But with the advent of new imaging technology, we are now
>> opening up many areas and RESOLVING age long philosophical disputes thr=
>ough
>> science. One of the first casualties was Cartesian duality, for example=
>: the
>> mind/body connection has been strongly established through the discover=
>y
>> emotion-carrying peptides.
>
>Right...Science has helped dissolve old philosophical dualism but it is
>hardly the arbiter of what is real and what is not. Moral and aesthetics
>qualities are as real as any of the quantifiable objects of science even
>if there is considerable disagreement about them.
> This was John Dewey's view (my philosophical papi).
>
>
>
>
>> This kinda gives a different twist to "objective" reality. Since our se=
>nsing of
>> the outer world is filtered through "chemical" (peptides) brain reacti=
>ons, each
>> with a different emotional tone, how can we objectively define what's "=
>real" and
>> what's not "real"? How much does our conditioning or cultural upbringin=
>g play in
>> this process ( according to the new science, A LOT)?
>>
>
>Of course it is "filtered" but there is no "outer" world that we can
>never get to. You are pressuposing a dualism inner/outer
>=2E..subjective/objective. All experience is conditioned in the sense you=
>
>described...so what? it does not follow that we should adopt
>subjectivism or "every thing goes" views (a la Postmodernism). You have
>the option to follow Dewey and James. =
<snip>
You see, people make the mistake of lumping postmodenism into that "anything
goes" bin, which is really a misrepresentation. Postmodernism is a whole range a
thought in which the great discovery that niether the self nor the world is a
pregiven, rahter they exist in contexts and backgrounds that have a histroy, a
development. This is where I find many thinkers lacking: developement. My
heroes, who offer a more moderate approach from the post structuralists are
Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Piaget, et al. This more moderate PoMo
approach recognizes that world and world view are not altogether pregiven, but
rather develop in history. And so this approach investigates the actual history
and unfolding of these world views, not as a series of arm flappings-around, but
rather as an evolutionary or developmental pattern, governed in part by the
trends of evolution itself.
>
>> This brings me back to the Post Structuralists, who began by saying the=
>re was no
>> objective reality (which Foucault later rescinded). The postmodernist (=
>and
>> please, no PoMo bashing. PoMo is not ONE philosophical school) watersh=
>ed was
>> right in bringing the focus on to what the "mapmaker" was bringing to t=
>he "map."
>> The first step to breaking the chains is to admit that they exist and t=
>aking
>> into consideration the cultural baggage we ALL bring to the table. It w=
>as a good
>> thing for science. In fact, new avenues and ways of seeing were given a=
>
>> legitamcy that helped create a broader range of knowledge.
>> =
>
>> But if you study the origianl post structuralist stance, there is a gr=
>ave
>> error: a performative contradiction. If you say there is no objective r=
>eality,
>> isn't that then an absolute statement? How would you like to go around =
>with a
>> philosophy that states no absolutes through an absolute dictum. While t=
>he
>> intention of the post structuralists was noble: taking away power from =
>an
>> entrenched orthodoxy, they did so in way that, in the end, is more oppr=
>essive.
>
>Where Postructualist and Postmoderninst are traveling today, james and
>Dewey traveled a long time ago (1910's) but without the problems that
>you mentioned and without the cultural relativism. I am serious you
>would dig those guys!! they are like jazz!
<snip>
I like them but I find their worldviews incomplete for my own tastes. Actually,
I like to fool around with developemental stages and see how that creates the
world...sheesh, now I can't even understand what the fuck I'm saying.
Gregory F. Pappas
> You see, people make the mistake of lumping postmodenism into that "anything
> goes" bin, which is really a misrepresentation.
You are right.
> Postmodernism is a whole range a
> thought in which the great discovery that niether the self nor the world is a
> pregiven, rahter they exist in contexts and backgrounds that have a histroy, a
> development. This is where I find many thinkers lacking: developement. My
> heroes, who offer a more moderate approach from the post structuralists are
> Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Piaget, et al. This more moderate PoMo
> approach recognizes that world and world view are not altogether pregiven, but
> rather develop in history. And so this approach investigates the actual history
> and unfolding of these world views, not as a series of arm flappings-around, but
> rather as an evolutionary or developmental pattern, governed in part by the
> trends of evolution itself.
>
This is Dewey's approach plus more...
>
>
> I like them but I find their worldviews incomplete for my own tastes.
Maybe james but not Dewey. He wrote 45 volumes of philosophy about
almost any conceivable topic. Read his book "Reconstruction of
Philosophy" and if you are not satisfied we will give you your mind
back! Actually a good short secondary source that can help you decide if
Dewey is for you is "John Dewey: Rethinking our Time" by Boisvert
(1998)....and by the way there is a dewey-list in the net. I want you to
be "fuc.." part of my cult..don't you see!
Gregory
Bong...@webtv.net
I agree with so much of what you say, especially your views of the
mapmaker metaphors.
What Francisco Varela has taught us (Principles of Biological Autonomy,
The Embodied Mind, The Tree of Knowledge) is that there is no longer a
Cartesian split between whether there is only objective reality or
subjective reality.
Indeed, we should never be strict solopsists, because there IS a "there"
there. People tend to get wet when it rains. Bishop Berkeley kicks a
rock, etc.
But strict cognitivism is ridiculous as well because so much of
"reality" is manufactured by the brain/mind. (For example,
peer-reviewed studies show that the perception of certain colors is
dependent on whether one is sitting or reclining....)
What occurs is what Varela (and those in the "emergent" school) term
"mutual specifications" where organisms coevolve and cospecify ways in
which they interact with each other.
And Varela ties this in with Mahayana Buddhism which acknowledges that
we BOTH appreciate/interpret AND manufacture reality. (This differs
dramatically from Therevadan and Vajrayana Buddhism!).
And it is our ethical duty to be compassionate with those who have
PARTIALLY constructed a reality that is painful for them. Note the
"PARTIALLY constructed" choice of words here. This is not "either/or"
Descartes, it is "Both/and" (Varela).
Varela is currently a professor of Mathematics at Ecole Polytechnique in
Paris, regarded as some as the most prestigious French University.
Before that he was a Professor of Mathematics at the University of
Mexico in Mexico City.
Varela is also the most important person in the "artificial life"
movement that is transforming huge swaths of computer science and
artificial intelligence/mathematical linguistics scholarship.
Within 5 years, it looks like Varela's flying mechanical insects (that
avoid walls by means of sonar) will be able to gather and store parts
and then construct additional flying mechanical insects.
Self-replicating......
The birth of artificial life. Five years. Paris. Be there!
Musically,
Matthew
HOW DO I MEASURE UP? Listen to the mix of Chucho Valdes, Anthony
Carillo and myself playing "Tumbao" at www.picadillo.com/matthew and let
me know!
Edward-Yemíl Rosario
>Eddie-
>
>I agree with so much of what you say, especially your views of the
>mapmaker metaphors.
>
>What Francisco Varela has taught us (Principles of Biological Autonomy,
>The Embodied Mind, The Tree of Knowledge) is that there is no longer a
>Cartesian split between whether there is only objective reality or
>subjective reality.
<snip>
I'm totally familiar with Varela's work, since he's one of the few to take the
cognitivists to task. His Embodied Mind is definitely a masterpiece.
>Indeed, we should never be strict solopsists, because there IS a "there"
>there. People tend to get wet when it rains. Bishop Berkeley kicks a
>rock, etc.
>
>But strict cognitivism is ridiculous as well because so much of
>"reality" is manufactured by the brain/mind. (For example,
>peer-reviewed studies show that the perception of certain colors is
>dependent on whether one is sitting or reclining....)
<snip>
Cats raised in the absence of vertical stripes can't recognize them later on.
read Sack's "The Man Who Mistook his Wife for Hat" for interesting insights on
how the Body/Mind works (or doesn't work).
>What occurs is what Varela (and those in the "emergent" school) term
>"mutual specifications" where organisms coevolve and cospecify ways in
>which they interact with each other.
<snip>
I've seen this discussed from a "holographic paradigm" perspective, check it
out. What's most interesting is that the world changes according to your
perception of it. As we evolve from the materialistic perspective we open up a
"new" world with all of its inherrent potentials AND dangers.
>And Varela ties this in with Mahayana Buddhism which acknowledges that
>we BOTH appreciate/interpret AND manufacture reality. (This differs
>dramatically from Therevadan and Vajrayana Buddhism!).
<snip>
I strongly disagree with your take on the theravadans. Part of the Pali Canon,
the earliest extant writings on Buddhism, is the Abhidhamma. In the Abhidhamma
are some of the most sophisticated PYSCHOLOGICAL treatises known to man.
Perception, the ultimate nature of reality, systems theory, and some really
fantastic shit is found. shit that modern sciences such as Quantum Physics and
evolutionary biology are starting to validate. THIS is the theravadin school,
otherwise known as classical Buddhism. Of all the Buddhist schools, the
theravadan has kept to a strictly nontheistic model, staying close to its
psychological roots.
In any case, Varela is very much aware of the abhidhamma and its commentary, the
visuddhimagga. You need to check this shit out before you throw out
pronouncements such as the above.
>And it is our ethical duty to be compassionate with those who have
>PARTIALLY constructed a reality that is painful for them. Note the
>"PARTIALLY constructed" choice of words here. This is not "either/or"
>Descartes, it is "Both/and" (Varela).
<snip>
Which was not brought out by Varela, he's only following in the footsteps of the
more moderate postmodernists...
>Varela is currently a professor of Mathematics at Ecole Polytechnique in
>Paris, regarded as some as the most prestigious French University.
>Before that he was a Professor of Mathematics at the University of
>Mexico in Mexico City.
>
>Varela is also the most important person in the "artificial life"
>movement that is transforming huge swaths of computer science and
>artificial intelligence/mathematical linguistics scholarship.
>
>Within 5 years, it looks like Varela's flying mechanical insects (that
>avoid walls by means of sonar) will be able to gather and store parts
>and then construct additional flying mechanical insects.
>Self-replicating......
<snip>
I haven't heard about this and given your predisposition towards the
overstatement, I'll withhold any judgement or comment. In any case, what's
important about Varela and the rest of the neurosciences (of which Varela is
just a small, small part) is how we can use their findings in the service of
understanding the HUMAN mind/body. What are its applications and, even more
important, how do these findings help us better understand ourselves.
When you combine the "chemical brain" with the "electrical brain" and juxtapose
a modular brain model over the whole shmear, what you begin to see is definitely
exciting.
Edward-Yemíl Rosario
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is
distributed without profit or payment to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for
non-profit research and educational purposes only.
Dennis M. Reed "Califa"
>
> On Fri, 16 Jul 1999 15:17:55 -0700 (PDT), Bong...@webtv.net wrote:
>
> >Eddie-
> >
> >I agree with so much of what you say, especially your views of the
> >mapmaker metaphors.
> >
> >What Francisco Varela has taught us (Principles of Biological Autonomy,
> >The Embodied Mind, The Tree of Knowledge) is that there is no longer a
> >Cartesian split between whether there is only objective reality or
> >subjective reality.
> <snip>
>
> I'm totally familiar with Varela's work, since he's one of the few to take the
> cognitivists to task. His Embodied Mind is definitely a masterpiece.
>
> >Indeed, we should never be strict solopsists, because there IS a "there"
> >there. People tend to get wet when it rains. Bishop Berkeley kicks a
> >rock, etc.
There is no way to prove that solipsism is untrue. It has the structure
of a myth not of a "science".
> >
> >But strict cognitivism is ridiculous as well because so much of
> >"reality" is manufactured by the brain/mind. (For example,
> >peer-reviewed studies show that the perception of certain colors is
> >dependent on whether one is sitting or reclining....)
> <snip>
>
> Cats raised in the absence of vertical stripes can't recognize them later on.
> read Sack's "The Man Who Mistook his Wife for Hat" for interesting insights on
> how the Body/Mind works (or doesn't work).
>
> >What occurs is what Varela (and those in the "emergent" school) term
> >"mutual specifications" where organisms coevolve and cospecify ways in
> >which they interact with each other.
> <snip>
>
> I've seen this discussed from a "holographic paradigm" perspective, check it
> out. What's most interesting is that the world changes according to your
> perception of it. As we evolve from the materialistic perspective we open up a
> "new" world with all of its inherrent potentials AND dangers.
>
> >And Varela ties this in with Mahayana Buddhism which acknowledges that
> >we BOTH appreciate/interpret AND manufacture reality. (This differs
> >dramatically from Therevadan and Vajrayana Buddhism!).
How does this differ from Vajrayana? What are your reference sources?
> <snip>
>
> I strongly disagree with your take on the theravadans. Part of the Pali Canon,
> the earliest extant writings on Buddhism, is the Abhidhamma. In the Abhidhamma
> are some of the most sophisticated PYSCHOLOGICAL treatises known to man.
> Perception, the ultimate nature of reality, systems theory, and some really
> fantastic shit is found. shit that modern sciences such as Quantum Physics and
> evolutionary biology are starting to validate. THIS is the theravadin school,
> otherwise known as classical Buddhism. Of all the Buddhist schools, the
> theravadan has kept to a strictly nontheistic model, staying close to its
> psychological roots.
I am not prepared to dispute your take on the Theravadans but in what
way are they "superior" to Vajrayana? Being first, earliest, etc., does
not necessarily the best, just look at science where the latest is
supposedly best.
>
> In any case, Varela is very much aware of the abhidhamma and its commentary, the
> visuddhimagga. You need to check this shit out before you throw out
> pronouncements such as the above.
>
> >And it is our ethical duty to be compassionate with those who have
> >PARTIALLY constructed a reality that is painful for them. Note the
> >"PARTIALLY constructed" choice of words here. This is not "either/or"
> >Descartes, it is "Both/and" (Varela).
> <snip>
>
> Which was not brought out by Varela, he's only following in the footsteps of the
> more moderate postmodernists...
Although I personally feel compassion is important it is not necessary,
e.g., the Theravadans. Mayajana is a means which has a useful approach
for some while Hiniyana has an appeal for others. Both seem to work
equally well for different individuals.
>
> >Varela is currently a professor of Mathematics at Ecole Polytechnique in
> >Paris, regarded as some as the most prestigious French University.
> >Before that he was a Professor of Mathematics at the University of
> >Mexico in Mexico City.
> >
> >Varela is also the most important person in the "artificial life"
> >movement that is transforming huge swaths of computer science and
> >artificial intelligence/mathematical linguistics scholarship.
> >
> >Within 5 years, it looks like Varela's flying mechanical insects (that
> >avoid walls by means of sonar) will be able to gather and store parts
> >and then construct additional flying mechanical insects.
> >Self-replicating......
Not unless they can make the parts from raw materials found in nature!
> <snip>
>
> I haven't heard about this and given your predisposition towards the
> overstatement, I'll withhold any judgement or comment. In any case, what's
> important about Varela and the rest of the neurosciences (of which Varela is
> just a small, small part) is how we can use their findings in the service of
> understanding the HUMAN mind/body. What are its applications and, even more
> important, how do these findings help us better understand ourselves.
>
> When you combine the "chemical brain" with the "electrical brain" and juxtapose
> a modular brain model over the whole shmear, what you begin to see is definitely
> exciting.
> Edward-Yemíl Rosario
>
> In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is
> distributed without profit or payment to those who have
> expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for
> non-profit research and educational purposes only.
--
"it ain't where you're from, it's where you're at" - Eric B. & Rakim
1980s
or 1990s (but stolen from someone in New Orleans in the 70s or
before!)?
"If the music grooves, it does not matter who is playing!" - Califa 1999
Being an altruistic hedonistic solipsist, is a tough row to how, and
most confusing too! - Califa 1999
Bong...@webtv.net
I don't understand why you stated that Varela doesn't understand that
reality is only PARTIALLY constructed.
Have you read The Embodied Mind? Additionally he and his coauthors Evan
Thompson and Eleanor Rosch DO discuss Therevadan Buddhism extensively in
his book.
He is NOT like the other neuroscientists such as Minsky and Hubel and
Wiesel! He is NOT a cognitivist, he is NOT a connectionist, he is an
enactionist.
I don't understand how you can make such sweeping statements about
Varela. What have you read of his?
Bong...@webtv.net
I apologize for not reading the part of your post carefully where you
state that you have read Varela's the Embodied Mind.
But how can you POSSIBLY read the book, describe it as a "masterpiece"
and fail to understand that Varela thoroughly discusses PARTIAL
construction of reality?
All of Part IV is entitled "Steps to a Middle Way"!
Geez. The middle way is neither solopsist nor cognitivist. It's a huge
chunk of the book!
And then you apparently claim Varela is an adherent of Theravada.
Why then does Varela state on page 219 of Chapter 20 that Theravada does
NOT teach sunyata?
Jeez, talk about overstatements!
Bong...@webtv.net
commentary misses several critical concepts.
It fails to adequately explain plasticity for starters!
JazzBuffalo
Eyes wide shut, that tune it could be argued, even if
erroneously, is in clave. But now that I artificially
inserted some musical content, is this rec.music.afro-latin?
What I'm really about is a BAD day. Two things. 1. Saw an
unsettling movie and 2. had unexpected family drop in.
It reminds me how much this ng is really family because you
pick/choose it, and how dependent I've grown of this group.
Obviously my family is large and I'm talking about a small
segment of it. Actually just one ocasionally seen cuz who I
really don't feel AFFECTION from and left wondering "why the
hell did he even drop by?" I feel closer to YOU. The
generic you: rec.music.afro-latin.
I have to wonder if ME my whole moood wasn't off because
right before the unexpected company we went to see an
upsetting movie. Therefore the Chris Isaac in clave
bullshit. Because, as I've stated before I only have time
for one ng and this is it. I am not going to go and discuss
this on the Siskel and Ebert ng. I want to know what YOU
think. Cuz you're my posse.
Talkin about Wide Eyes Shut.
I'm as dense as the next guy.
What the hell is that about?
If you'd rather you can e-mail me
I have my own theory of course
but since we are smarter as a pool than individually...
I think that it is about women's sexuality,
its been a long while since The Hite Report gave us a cold
shower and a wake up call. Sorry this isn't about BVSC but
it has not played in Mcallen yet.
--
The JazzBuffalo a.k.a. Luis Moreno
==================================
"Francisco Aguabella is the John Coltrane of the Conga Drum"
--Dizzy Gillespie
Edward-Yemíl Rosario
>Edward-
>
>I apologize for not reading the part of your post carefully where you
>state that you have read Varela's the Embodied Mind.
>
>But how can you POSSIBLY read the book, describe it as a "masterpiece"
>and fail to understand that Varela thoroughly discusses PARTIAL
>construction of reality?
>
>All of Part IV is entitled "Steps to a Middle Way"!
>
>Geez. The middle way is neither solopsist nor cognitivist. It's a huge
>chunk of the book!
>
>And then you apparently claim Varela is an adherent of Theravada.
>
>Why then does Varela state on page 219 of Chapter 20 that Theravada does
>NOT teach sunyata?
<snip>
First of all Varela is indeed familiar with the Pali Canon, especially the
psychological treatments therein. Secondly, this notion that theravada does not
teach sunnatta has been thoroughly dismissed by theravadan monks. Read for
example, Buddhadasa's (1994). Heartwood of the bodhi tree: The Buddha's teaching
on voidness (Dhammavicayo, Trans.). (1st ed.): Wisdom Publications. In which he
definitely giudes westerners in the MISunderstand of notions of voidness
(sunnata).
These partitions you erect between the schools of Buddhism, have been for the
most of your own construction. While emphases and approaches to the dhamma
indeed are different in the various schools, the basic tenets are all there, all
present in the different schools. Dennis states that compassion doesn't exist in
theravada? Not true!! It's just that theravadans approach compassion from a
different perspective. However, compassion is still one of the earmarks of
skillfull means no matter what school you adhere to.
As the Buddha himself said his teachings are but like a handful of leaves.
Still, Buddhism is not so much concerned with the shadows (concepts) than with
the actual experience of states like anicca, sunnata, and dukkha. It is more
concerned with the EXPERIENTIAL nature of EXPERIENCE. Have you ever read the
story of the man in the forest?
The Buddha compared arguing basic concepts like God and such to a man, having
been shot with an arrow, refuses to accept treatment until he finds out WHO
shot, with what kind of arrow, etc. This is my stance too. I'd much rather
meditate than talk about it. I'd much rather experience sunnata than quibble
about whether or not a western neuroscientist agrees that it's taught in
theravada. These are all nice "toys," rhetorical devices with which we can ll
chase our tails with, but it ultimately does nothing to transform one's life.
It's in the actual doing (in this case meditating) that transfromation or
positive change comes about.
>
>Musically,
>
>
>Matthew
>
>HOW DO I MEASURE UP? Listen to the mix of Chucho Valdes, Anthony
>Carillo and myself playing "Tumbao" at www.picadillo.com/matthew and let
>me know!
>
Edward-Yemíl Rosario
Edward-Yemíl Rosario
>Edward-
>
>I don't understand why you stated that Varela doesn't understand that
>reality is only PARTIALLY constructed.
<snip>
Did I state this? If I did, then I made a boo boo, cause iff you would have
bothered to read my original post, I offered a model with which to view the
construction of reality. A model that takes into consideration evolutionary
parameters.
>Have you read The Embodied Mind? Additionally he and his coauthors Evan
>Thompson and Eleanor Rosch DO discuss Therevadan Buddhism extensively in
>his book.
<snip>
Here's the abstract to the Varela book, which I have read, thank you:
==============================================================================================================
Varela, F. J., E. Thompson, et al. (1991). The embodied mind: Cognitive science
and human experience. Cambridge, MA, Mit Press.
(from the jacket) Varela, Thompson, and Rosch argue that it is only by
having a sense of common ground between mind in science and mind in experience
that our understanding of cognition can be more complete. To create this common
ground, they develop a dialogue between cognitive science and Buddhist
meditative psychology and situate this dialogue in relation to other traditions,
such as phenomenology and psychoanalysis.
(from the introduction) The existential concern that animates our entire
discussion in this book results from the tangible demonstration within cognitive
science that the self or cognizing subject is fundamentally fragmented, divided,
or nonunified. /// Our view is that the current style of investigation is
limited and unsatisfactory, both theoretically and empirically, because there
remains no direct, hands-on, pragmatic approach to experience with which to
complement science. /// Our concern is to open a space of possibilities in which
the circulation between cognitive science and human experience can be fully
appreciated and to foster the transformative possibilities of human experience
in a scientific culture. /// In writing the book, we have aimed for a level of
discussion that will be accessible to several audiences. Thus we have attempted
to address not only working cognitive scientists but also educated laypersons
with a general interest in the dialogue between science and experience, as well
as those interested in Buddhist or comparative thought. ((c) 1997 APA/PsycINFO,
all rights reserved)
==============================================================================================================
when I think of Varela, I immediately think of "structural coupling" that
dynamic resulting from the potentials inherent in the fields (using the word
fields in its modern physsic context) of mind and matter.
What I find interesting is that the authors' explicit motivation for writing
the book is to "open a space of possibilities in which the circulation between
cognitive science and human experience can be fully appreciated and to foster
the transformative possibilities of human experience in a scientific culture..."
The important point here is the attempt to connect science and experience. How
do they do this, you ask? By demonstrating that the way we look at reality and
the mind is sorely off track. Sure, they take cognitivists to task, but they
also use much of the groundwork laid out before them.
Take into consideration modern physic's assertion that there is no separation
between mind and matter, that the whole shebang is a result of a dynamic, and
you have the jumping off place for people like Varela. What Varela, et al., did
was take it one step farther and show the holes inherent in the cognitivist's
model. The Embodied Mind is an important work, as I have stated before, but it
too did not spring up fully formed -- it borrows heavily from a lot of other
shit too numerous to sate here.
>He is NOT like the other neuroscientists such as Minsky and Hubel and
>Wiesel! He is NOT a cognitivist, he is NOT a connectionist, he is an
>enactionist.
<snip>
when did I say that he was?
>I don't understand how you can make such sweeping statements about
>Varela. What have you read of his?
<snip>
Believe me, I've read Varela and, contrary to your idealization, while his work
IS important and I borrow heavily from him, there are weaknesses in his work.
Here's other stuff I've read:
Varela, F. (1993). When is a map cognitive? The evolution of cognitive maps: New
paradigms for the twenty first century. E. Laszlo, I. Masulli and et-al.
Langhorne, PA, Gordon and Breach Science Publishers. 5: 99-104.
(from the chapter) discuss [the] notion of a "cognitive map" / [the
author is] concerned about the fact that we need to enlarge the scope of the
conception of what is cognition / this has an important impact on the discussion
of global understanding and global mind /// [argue] that the notion of a
cognitive map, and the notion of information processing, have historical roots /
use a conceptual cartography of how I see the cognitive sciences of today / [the
idea of cognition as information processing] is a historically conditioned view,
and not the only way of understanding cognition / [consider] 2 further
expansions of this core conception [the self-organizing capacity of the brain
and the evolutionary notion of fit, or adequacy, which calls into question the
existence of cognitive maps] ((c) 1997 APA/PsycINFO, all rights reserved)
Varela, F. J. (1997). “Patterns of life: Intertwining identity and cognition.”
Brain and Cognition: Special Issue: Artificial life: A bridge toward a new
artificial intelligence 34(1): 72-87.
Discusses the fundamental interlock between identity and cognition, as
they work in the case of a minimal organism, by spelling out the nature of its
identity as a body in motion-and-space through the operational closure of the
interneuron network. This activity is observable as multiple subnetworks,
acting in parallel and interwoven in complex "bricolages," giving rise again
and again to coherent patterns which manifest themselves as behaviors. The
author also clarifies how this emergent, parallel, and distributed dynamics is
inseparable from the constitution of a world, which is none other than the
surplus of meaning and intentions carried by situated behavior. If the links to
the physical environment are inevitable, the uniqueness of the cognitive
identity is this constant genesis of meaning. Cognition is action about what is
missing, filling the fault from the perspective of a cognitive agent. ((c) 1997
APA/PsycINFO, all rights reserved)
==============================================================================================================
I think his strongest suit is his discussion of autpoeitic (sp) systems.
Peace Out,
Edward-Yemil Rosario,
People say "I want peace." If you remove I {ego}, and your want {desire},
you are left with peace - Satya Sai Baba
Dennis M. Reed "Califa"
difference, as I understand it, is the Boddhisattva vow of the Mahayana.
"Edward-Yemíl Rosario" wrote:
>
> On Sat, 17 Jul 1999 14:04:49 -0700 (PDT), Bong...@webtv.net wrote:
>
> >Edward-
> >
--
"it ain't where you're from, it's where you're at" - Eric B. & Rakim
1980s or 1990s (but stolen from someone in New Orleans in the 70s or
before!)?
"If the music grooves, it does not matter who is playing!" - Califa 1999
Being an altruistic hedonistic solipcist, is a tough row to how, and
Bong...@webtv.net
I haven't seen Eyes Wide Shut. But I wonder if Kubrick was truly
finished with it....
Bong...@webtv.net
I highly recommend these other works by Varela (books) which are much
more important than the additional articles you cited.
Principles of Biological Autonomy.
The Tree of Knowldge.
Autopoesis and Cognition
Artificial Life
Varela and I had the same mentor in the 1970s, Gregory Bateson, and I
have followed his work intimately since then.
You speak of Varela vs. the cognitivists, and this further leads me to
doubt your claim that you are thoroughly familiar with his work. (You
have only read one book, failed to understand it's central theses, and
two articles.)
Much of The Embodied Mind deconstructs (a term dear to you) the
connectionists as well. And they are also very much in vogue right now.
Edward-Yemíl Rosario
>Edward-
>
>I highly recommend these other works by Varela (books) which are much
>more important than the additional articles you cited.
>
>Principles of Biological Autonomy.
>The Tree of Knowldge.
>Autopoesis and Cognition
>Artificial Life
>
>Varela and I had the same mentor in the 1970s, Gregory Bateson, and I
>have followed his work intimately since then.
<snip>
Yeah yeah, so what? One of my mentors, at the cutting edge of neuroscisnce is
LeDoux, and you don't see me trotting his ragged ass out.
>You speak of Varela vs. the cognitivists, and this further leads me to
>doubt your claim that you are thoroughly familiar with his work. (You
>have only read one book, failed to understand it's central theses, and
>two articles.)
<snip>
Aw puleeeze. He takes the coginitivist stance to task, thrashing the Cartesian
paradigm in the process, period.
>Much of The Embodied Mind deconstructs (a term dear to you) the
>connectionists as well. And they are also very much in vogue right now.
<snip>
but who gives a shit about vogue? You think this name-dropping impresses me?
Gregory F. Pappas
scientist who is doing some philosophy of mind? Just curious.
gregory "el tejazzrican"
Bong...@webtv.net wrote:
>
> Edward-
>
> I highly recommend these other works by Varela (books) which are much
> more important than the additional articles you cited.
>
> Principles of Biological Autonomy.
> The Tree of Knowldge.
> Autopoesis and Cognition
> Artificial Life
>
> Varela and I had the same mentor in the 1970s, Gregory Bateson, and I
> have followed his work intimately since then.
>
> You speak of Varela vs. the cognitivists, and this further leads me to
> doubt your claim that you are thoroughly familiar with his work. (You
> have only read one book, failed to understand it's central theses, and
> two articles.)
>
> Much of The Embodied Mind deconstructs (a term dear to you) the
> connectionists as well. And they are also very much in vogue right now.
>
Bong...@webtv.net
Why would I try to impress somebody who knows so little?
I'll leave the last word to you on this, because I know you are
MISERABLE without conflict....
It's why the women look in your eyes and describe you as a serial
killer....
oh... that's right they're just kidding aren't they?
you get the last word. fire away old man.
Bong...@webtv.net
I'll respond privately. Edward wants to be the authority on the
subject.
Edward-Yemíl Rosario
>Edward-
>
>Why would I try to impress somebody who knows so little?
>
>I'll leave the last word to you on this, because I know you are
>MISERABLE without conflict....
<snip>
Gee, Ilike that "miserable without conflict" statement, very original and
certainly very insightful in terms of YOU handle confrontation.
>It's why the women look in your eyes and describe you as a serial
>killer....
>
>oh... that's right they're just kidding aren't they?
<snip>
Nope, I AM a SEXUALLY MOTIVATED serial killer. I like to rip old farts like
you...
>you get the last word. fire away old man.
<snip>
How gracious of you Matt. No real discussion of Varela's strengths and
weaknesses, just another variation on the "I'm Armando's ho and he can walk on
water" rhetorci and then the
"you-don't-know-anything-so-I'm-not-going-to-be-bothered" crap. Ok Matt, I'm
your bitch...feel better?
Edward-Yemíl Rosario
>So..let me get this right. This guy (Varela) is a contemporary cognitive
>scientist who is doing some philosophy of mind? Just curious.
<snip>
Greg,
For a long long time, the issue of the "mind" has been philosophical territory.
A lot of intelligent people have come out with a lot of fascinating concepts by
treating the mind as a black box and then making statements by observing how
things come in and out.
In reecent times, state of the art imaging techniques are allowing us "inside"
the brain giving us more insight into what's doing what and why. To be sure,
there's still A LOT we don't know, but what we do know has enormous
ramifications to 1) eudcation, 2) how the "self" is constructed, 3) the nature
of reality and how we construct theis reality.
Anyway, Varela's work is an important one in which he borrows enormously from
Buddhist psychology, most notably the abhidhamma. Varela emphasizes structural
coupling between phenomena and the neural fields (fields in the sense of
potential) of the brian and how these act toghether to create our world.
It is a facinating and exciting look at how the Brain/mind works and it alos
demolishes the enilightenment paradigm brought about by Cartesian duality.
However, he and his colleagues are only a small part of the constantly
groundbreaking area of neuroscience. Ledoux et al. at NYU have mapped out neural
circuitry showing, in the process, how emotions are a vital part of logical
reasoning. Ornstein, Sobel, Pert, et al. have elaborated on a chemical brain
model, showing how the mind/body are essentially one whole system each talking
to each other constantly (the brain as a "movable feast"), how we can directly
influence our immune system and vice-versa. Suffice it to say that there's a
whole lot of shit going on and certain philosophical schools are getting flogged
as a result.
Anyway, far from being the "Armando" of Neurosciences, Varela, while his work is
indeed importantant is not the only thing going on. He also borrows heavily from
the abhidhamma which Matt refutes but which is stated in the book outright. His
whole "middle Way" as a matter of fact is a synonym for the Noble 8-Fold path of
Buddhism, so called because it avoid the extremes of nihilism and immortatily.
Wallice
Edward-Yemíl Rosario <luc...@ix.netcom.com> wrote
like
rhetorci
> Peace Out,
Gregory F. Pappas
> but what we do know has enormous
> ramifications to 1) eudcation, 2) how the "self" is constructed, 3) the nature of reality and how we construct theis reality.
>
> coupling between phenomena and the neural fields (fields in the sense >of potential) of the brian and how these act toghether to create our >world.
Interesting! he sounds a bit too scientistic, i.e., the positivist view
that "things are only what science tell us they are" (or scientific
theories disclose the nature of reality).
Gregory
>
> It is a facinating and exciting look at how the Brain/mind works and it alos
> demolishes the enilightenment paradigm brought about by Cartesian duality.
>
> However, he and his colleagues are only a small part of the constantly
> groundbreaking area of neuroscience. Ledoux et al. at NYU have mapped out neural
> circuitry showing, in the process, how emotions are a vital part of logical
> reasoning. Ornstein, Sobel, Pert, et al. have elaborated on a chemical brain
> model, showing how the mind/body are essentially one whole system each talking
> to each other constantly (the brain as a "movable feast"), how we can directly
> influence our immune system and vice-versa. Suffice it to say that there's a
> whole lot of shit going on and certain philosophical schools are getting flogged
> as a result.
>
> Anyway, far from being the "Armando" of Neurosciences, Varela, while his work is
> indeed importantant is not the only thing going on. He also borrows heavily from
> the abhidhamma which Matt refutes but which is stated in the book outright. His
> whole "middle Way" as a matter of fact is a synonym for the Noble 8-Fold path of
> Buddhism, so called because it avoid the extremes of nihilism and immortatily.
Dennis M. Reed "Califa"
of reality check! A couple of things always come to mind that seem to be
omitted when describing scientific theories:
1) scientific theories are theories not facts, i.e., the theories are
constantly changing and growing; they are not set in stone!
2) scientific theories always use mathematics and the mathematics is
based upon number theory (theories?) and our number theory is just one
of many possible theories, i.e., there is no fact at the basis of number
theory, just axioms and postulates, etc. For example for many years
Euclidean geometry was considered "fact" and science used those "facts"
but then non Euclidean geometries were shown to be as internally
consistent as the Euclidean geometry. I seem to recall that the same
happened to number theory. In general, math and geometry are just tools
to help describe what we think might be reality or "fact" but different
math and geometries are used for different situations. There does not
appear to be a "unified" theory of math or of geometry which contains
all math and geometry.
Kind of shaky ground for attempting to describe reality or facts!
> > Peace Out,
> > Edward-Yemil Rosario,
> >
> > People say "I want peace." If you remove I {ego}, and your want {desire},
> > you are left with peace - Satya Sai Baba
--
Gregory F. Pappas
> 1) scientific theories are theories not facts, In general, math and geometry are just tools
> to help describe what we think might be reality
I would not even go that far. Scientific theories are only "tools" to
solve problems (theoretical ones sometimes) and control our
environment..they do not disclose "reality." That makes me a
"Pragmatist."
Grgeory
Dennis M. Reed "Califa"
said "control or manipulate" instead of just "control" and have preceded
"environment" with "perceived".
--
Edward-Yemíl Rosario
I'm wondering if you would feel the same way when submitting to a medical
procedure. I mean, Newtonian physics are theories, so is the bacteria model of
diseases.
On Tue, 20 Jul 1999 14:49:06 GMT, "Dennis M. Reed \"Califa\"" <dmr...@home.com>
wrote:
>> > Peace Out,
>> > Edward-Yemil Rosario,
>> >
>> > People say "I want peace." If you remove I {ego}, and your want {desire},
>> > you are left with peace - Satya Sai Baba
>
>--
>"it ain't where you're from, it's where you're at" - Eric B. & Rakim
>1980s or 1990s (but stolen from someone in New Orleans in the 70s or
>before!)?
>
>"If the music grooves, it does not matter who is playing!" - Califa 1999
>
>Being an altruistic hedonistic solipcist, is a tough row to how, and
>most confusing too! - Califa 1999
>
>Dennis M. Reed "Califa"
>
>My Home Page, last updated 05/15/99, includes my musical
>autobiography (which includes many personal audio files
>of groups I worked with beginning in the 1960s including
>rare recordings by Carlos Federico and early photos including
>Celia Cruz and Pete Escovedo; 1998 photos of Willie Colón),
>and selected LP and CD recordings which had major influence
>on my musical development. It also includes information
>regarding the PC WIN 95/98 US-International Keyboard
>with a large printable U.S.International Keyboard image.
>http://www.dmreed.com, if that does not work, try:
>http://www.geocities.com/~dmreed
Peace Out,
Dennis M. Reed "Califa"
amusing until after I feel better. You must notice that I am amused at
the notion of science describing some ultimate reality not at the use of
theories and models to produce some useful effect. I don't reject the
use of science and I used and appreciate the efforts of scientists to
expand and modify theories and develop new things to make our existence
better, more comfortable, easier, etc., I simply challenge the notion
that it is the final reality check or that even the latest theory is the
final theory. For example, I have silver-mercury fillings in my teeth
but I am aware that there is some evidence (fairly recent) that they may
be dangerous (check out how dentists keep the material especially the
old fillings they remove) but they were the best or only thing I could
afford and sure beats having a tooth ache!
> >> > Peace Out,
> >> > Edward-Yemil Rosario,
> >> >
> >> > People say "I want peace." If you remove I {ego}, and your want {desire},
> >> > you are left with peace - Satya Sai Baba
> >
> >--
> >"it ain't where you're from, it's where you're at" - Eric B. & Rakim
> >1980s or 1990s (but stolen from someone in New Orleans in the 70s or
> >before!)?
> >
> >"If the music grooves, it does not matter who is playing!" - Califa 1999
> >
> >Being an altruistic hedonistic solipcist, is a tough row to how, and
> >most confusing too! - Califa 1999
> >
> >Dennis M. Reed "Califa"
> >
> >My Home Page, last updated 05/15/99, includes my musical
> >autobiography (which includes many personal audio files
> >of groups I worked with beginning in the 1960s including
> >rare recordings by Carlos Federico and early photos including
> >Celia Cruz and Pete Escovedo; 1998 photos of Willie Colón),
> >and selected LP and CD recordings which had major influence
> >on my musical development. It also includes information
> >regarding the PC WIN 95/98 US-International Keyboard
> >with a large printable U.S.International Keyboard image.
> >http://www.dmreed.com, if that does not work, try:
> >http://www.geocities.com/~dmreed
>
> Peace Out,
> Edward-Yemil Rosario,
>
> People say "I want peace." If you remove I {ego}, and your want {desire},
> you are left with peace - Satya Sai Baba
--
Stan Ginn
"Edward-Yemíl Rosario" wrote:
>
> Dennis:
>
> I'm wondering if you would feel the same way when submitting to a medical
> procedure. I mean, Newtonian physics are theories, so is the bacteria model of
> diseases.
>
Yeah, that's why the Chinese revived their traditional medical
practices. They found that the old ways accomplished some things that
modern medicine couldn't, and vice versa.
Stan
Wallice
> Yeah, that's why the Chinese revived their traditional medical
> practices.
Revived? It had never died!
We in the west just now "discovered" it....
Funny how in many regards we progress by going back.
--
Wallice
¿Qué pasa en Dallas, you asked?
Visit Nuestra Salsa Magazine-- Dallas' Afro-Latin Music Connection
http://www.arsnova1.com
Stan Ginn
time and had finally started funding traditional schools and officially
recognized the practitioners.
Stan
Edward-Yemíl Rosario
>
>
>"Edward-Yemíl Rosario" wrote:
>>
>> Dennis:
>>
>> I'm wondering if you would feel the same way when submitting to a medical
>> procedure. I mean, Newtonian physics are theories, so is the bacteria model of
>> diseases.
>>
>
>
>Yeah, that's why the Chinese revived their traditional medical
>practices. They found that the old ways accomplished some things that
>modern medicine couldn't, and vice versa.
<snip>
Tha's what Varela and others are saying (or have you even bothered trying to
understand or read THJAT part). Varela's position is guided in large part by an
adaptation of Buddhist psychological treatises and the whole thrust of modern
neuroligical advances say that the perspective of modern WESTERN science, based
on the enlightement paradigm, is faulty.
You guys should try to understand something before fuckin chirping in with over
ripe bullshit.
Stan Ginn
trust in medical science. I thought that I had seen you using science as
the ultimate authority elsewhere. My point is simply that science is
only our dominant world view, not the only one. If you only defend ideas
with scientific data, then you may as well be quoting the bible.
No, I've never read Varela, never even heard of him. I've got much
better things to do with my time. you know like read the news group....
Stan
"Edward-Yemíl Rosario" wrote:
>
> On Wed, 21 Jul 1999 13:48:18 -0700, Stan Ginn <stan...@jps.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >"Edward-Yemíl Rosario" wrote:
> >>
> >> Dennis:
> >>
> >> I'm wondering if you would feel the same way when submitting to a medical
> >> procedure. I mean, Newtonian physics are theories, so is the bacteria model of
> >> diseases.
> >>
> >
> >
> >Yeah, that's why the Chinese revived their traditional medical
> >practices. They found that the old ways accomplished some things that
> >modern medicine couldn't, and vice versa.
> <snip>
>
> Tha's what Varela and others are saying (or have you even bothered trying to
> understand or read THJAT part). Varela's position is guided in large part by an
> adaptation of Buddhist psychological treatises and the whole thrust of modern
> neuroligical advances say that the perspective of modern WESTERN science, based
> on the enlightement paradigm, is faulty.
>
> You guys should try to understand something before fuckin chirping in with over
> ripe bullshit.
Dennis M. Reed "Califa"
sideways!
Wallice wrote:
>
> Stan Ginn <stan...@jps.net> wrote
> > Yeah, that's why the Chinese revived their traditional medical
> > practices.
>
> Revived? It had never died!
> We in the west just now "discovered" it....
> Funny how in many regards we progress by going back.
>
> --
> Wallice
> ¿Qué pasa en Dallas, you asked?
> Visit Nuestra Salsa Magazine-- Dallas' Afro-Latin Music Connection
> http://www.arsnova1.com
--
Nina
Nina
--
Love is a fire. But whether it is going to warm your hearth or burn down
your house, you can never tell.
-- Joan Crawford
Dennis M. Reed "Califa" wrote in message <379A19D7...@home.com>...
Dennis M. Reed "Califa"
--
Nina
Nina "its 5 am,please make me log off" P
--
Love is a fire. But whether it is going to warm your hearth or burn down
your house, you can never tell.
-- Joan Crawford
Dennis M. Reed "Califa" wrote in message <379AB4E0...@home.com>...
Dennis M. Reed "Califa"
--