Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id PAA15872 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Tue, 6 Feb 2001 15:16:44 GMT From: <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 09:20:07 -0600 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Soul and Self Message-ID: <3A7FC1C7.596.2AE8251@localhost> In-reply-to: <20010206140944.C757@reborntechnology.co.uk> References: <3A7FA8A1.9308.24C44FA@localhost>; from joedees@bellsouth.net on Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 07:32:49AM -0600 X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
On 6 Feb 2001, at 14:09, Robin Faichney wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 07:32:49AM -0600, joedees@bellsouth.net wrote:
> > > The whole is more than the sum of its parts; it is also
> constituted > by the synergy of their interrelations. However, the
> widespread > religious belief in a soul has resulted at least
> partially from the > misgeneralization of the principle of the
> conservation of quantities, > where pattern and configuration do not
> matter, to its misapplication > as a conservation of qualities, where
> they do. When the neural > configuration and dynamic patterns
> disintegrate, so does the > emergent self they support. The idea,
> self-contradictorally held by > some selves, that there cannot be such
> an entity as a dynamically > recursive and complex-configuration
> grounded emergent materially- > based self seems to me to be, at least
> in part, an unfortunate > overcompensation for this dogmatic error,
> erring in the opposite > direction. As I have said before, when
> Buddha looked at each of > the individual skandas and proclaimed that
> he could not find a self, > this was an error akin to tearing down a
> wall, then claiming that > one cannot find it in any of the bricks.
> Claiming that the self is > nothing is fundamentalist buddhist
> literal-mindedness; seeing that > the self is instead no-thing, that
> is, not a thing since it is not static > and fixed into a definite
> being like a rock, but dynamically > becomes, is to allow the metaphor
> to point beyond itself instead of > to erroneously take it literally.
>
> I'm very happy, Joe, to see that our views on the self are converging.
>
> It's just a pity you do not have a wider/deeper knowledge of Buddhism.
> If it is anything, it is the central path, avoiding both eternalism
> (the self is a real thing) and nihilism (there is no self). The
> argument from the skandas is used only with eternalists, and most
> Buddhists -- and certainly the Buddha -- would understand that it
> demonstrates the unreality only of a certain concept of the self. The
> most profound Buddhist teachings assert that the self neither exists,
> nor does not exist. I'd be grateful if you'd stop slandering Buddhism
> and the Buddha this way. After all, I think you have reason to know
> better!! ;-)
>
What's the argument that Buddhists use on nihilists, Robin? And
why didn't the old chap come up with a logically valid and
empirically sound argument to use against the eternalists (there
are enough of such arguments out there)?
> --
> Robin Faichney
> robin@reborntechnology.co.uk
>
> ===============================================================
> This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
> Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
> For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
> see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
>
>
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 06 2001 - 15:18:44 GMT