Antlerman Posted June 10, 2012 Share Posted June 10, 2012 So you're going to sidestep the issue of your mistaken statement? Is that it? Let me fix it FOR you. Those that criticize the reductionistic approach to the study of nature are those who are most knowledgeable in science. It is the lay person who never thinks to question reductionism. Indeed the lay person equates reductionism with science. They typically operate under the mistaken assumption that reductionism IS science. I'm sidestepping nothing. I have directly heard the mistake of people who equate the two and criticize science as bad, because they see Reductionism as bad. It was again, in the context of Rev R's comment. It had nothing to do with the level of detail you're going into. I'm fully aware of these distinctions, but I felt it unnecessary to overly burden my response with every possible permeataion of meaning that someone might take from my comments, like you did. I do expect someone to try to be a little open to things not being spelled out in every possible detail. My posts are already overburded with detail, and yet then it doesn't seem to matter anyhow. The best approach for those like you is to ask. Ask, "for clarification are you saying....?" My answer would have been simple. No, I don't mean that. End of story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted June 10, 2012 Share Posted June 10, 2012 The best approach for those like you is to ask. Ask, "for clarification are you saying....?" My answer would have been simple. No, I don't mean that. End of story. I tried that. This was the very first thing I did. And your response in post #438 was anything but simple. End of story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asanerman Posted June 10, 2012 Share Posted June 10, 2012 And maybe a cow or a plant is enlightened, that is, they have no "cutting board," or "grist" for the mill, no This morning as I sat with my little Maltese by my side and gazed deeply into her little dark eyes I wondered; "Can I possibly be as much human as she is canine?" What is "human"? What is "canine"? "Just as when the parts are set together There arises the word "chariot." [canine-human] So does the notion of a being When the aggregates are present." The Buddha (Samyutta-Nikaya, (F.L. Woodward, trans.) Paii Text Society, 1972, I, 35) You too perceive of such? You would not have asked if not! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 10, 2012 Share Posted June 10, 2012 This morning as I sat with my little Maltese by my side and gazed deeply into her little dark eyes I wondered; "Can I possibly be as much human as she is canine?" What is "human"? What is "canine"? I've had the same questions in the past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noggy Posted June 10, 2012 Share Posted June 10, 2012 If you guys honestly don't think that cats have egos, you haven't experienced many cats. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted June 10, 2012 Share Posted June 10, 2012 The best approach for those like you is to ask. Ask, "for clarification are you saying....?" My answer would have been simple. No, I don't mean that. End of story. I tried that. This was the very first thing I did. And your response in post #438 was anything but simple. End of story. This wasn't clear to you?: Systems theory, again is legitimate science in my view. This too however, is not what I am talking about in saying reductionism is a philosophy. I'm talking not a philosophy of science. What isn't clear to you about this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted June 10, 2012 Share Posted June 10, 2012 I think it's best if I just steer clear of you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted June 10, 2012 Share Posted June 10, 2012 I think it's best if I just steer clear of you. That's not a bad idea considering the disruptions that follow from you when you don't. Again, take heed of my warning to you. No more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted June 10, 2012 Share Posted June 10, 2012 mmm hmmm yeah man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev R Posted June 10, 2012 Author Share Posted June 10, 2012 Ouch. That's been my critique at times too. Everyone needs a stick to the head on occasion. Some more than others. I wonder... how is it even possible to do an inquiry into anything without applying some form of reductive thinking? To reduce, is to take a part and look at the parts independently. Discussion is always analytical, isn't it? Just wonder what your thoughts are about this. I don't think you can examine anything without breaking things down a bit, looking at the parts and seeing how they mesh together to form the whole. I would agree that discussion is analytical. What would happen if we discussed the Pacquiao/Bradley fight (a bullshit call in my opinion)? We would break it down and examine each fighter's overall performance, break it down into individual rounds, discuss technical aspects such as punching power, weight gain, hand speed, number of punches thrown, etc. all the while realizing that none of these individual topics was the fight itself. Without breaking it down, what is there to talk about? I think the problem is that there's a method of reduction, which is what you say above, the peeling of onions. But then there's the philosophical idea if Reductionism which suggests that the parts are the only thing the constitute the whole, and it might not be completely true. The whole of one being or thing is constituted of its parts, but also of its processes and relationship with the environment around it. I don't exist in a vacuum. Take my body and put it in a stasis chamber out in space, I'm not the same person. Biologically the same, but not existentially the same. (I think. Antlerman and Legion might have something to say to clarify this to me or tell me if I'm on the right track.) Seems pretty accurate to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted June 10, 2012 Share Posted June 10, 2012 mmm hmmm yeah man Would you like your vacation to start today? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asanerman Posted June 10, 2012 Share Posted June 10, 2012 I think it's best if I just steer clear of you. I think it's best if I just steer clear of you. That's not a bad idea considering the disruptions that follow from you when you don't. Again, take heed of my warning to you. No more. Does that mean the "gun fight" is over for now and we don't have to take "cover" any longer? mmm hmmm yeah man Would you like your vacation to start today? Nope, one more salvo! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev R Posted June 10, 2012 Author Share Posted June 10, 2012 If you guys honestly don't think that cats have egos, you haven't experienced many cats. Cats have a single emotion: contempt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asanerman Posted June 10, 2012 Share Posted June 10, 2012 Ouch. That's been my critique at times too. Everyone needs a stick to the head on occasion. Some more than others. I wonder... how is it even possible to do an inquiry into anything without applying some form of reductive thinking? To reduce, is to take a part and look at the parts independently. Discussion is always analytical, isn't it? Just wonder what your thoughts are about this. I don't think you can examine anything without breaking things down a bit, looking at the parts and seeing how they mesh together to form the whole. I would agree that discussion is analytical. What would happen if we discussed the Pacquiao/Bradley fight (a bullshit call in my opinion)? We would break it down and examine each fighter's overall performance, break it down into individual rounds, discuss technical aspects such as punching power, weight gain, hand speed, number of punches thrown, etc. all the while realizing that none of these individual topics was the fight itself. Without breaking it down, what is there to talk about? I think the problem is that there's a method of reduction, which is what you say above, the peeling of onions. But then there's the philosophical idea if Reductionism which suggests that the parts are the only thing the constitute the whole, and it might not be completely true. The whole of one being or thing is constituted of its parts, but also of its processes and relationship with the environment around it. I don't exist in a vacuum. Take my body and put it in a stasis chamber out in space, I'm not the same person. Biologically the same, but not existentially the same. (I think. Antlerman and Legion might have something to say to clarify this to me or tell me if I'm on the right track.) Seems pretty accurate to me. The "stir fry" somehow catches my attention. How to go with the "connected" flow once all is reduced to no-thing! There is a "flow", right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev R Posted June 10, 2012 Author Share Posted June 10, 2012 Well, I was hungry when I wrote it. Flow is the best word I been able to come up with to describe it, but you can't enter it because you've never been separate from it. But now we are bordering on the stuff that makes people who are otherwise interested get a little nervous. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deva Posted June 10, 2012 Share Posted June 10, 2012 I always follow this thread with interest, but I don't say much because I don't have the ability to convey Buddhism in such a poetic fashion as Rev and Asaner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted June 10, 2012 Share Posted June 10, 2012 I always follow this thread with interest, but I don't say much because I don't have the ability to convey Buddhism in such a poetic fashion as Rev and Asaner. Why not post the poetry of other Buddhists you've seen and enjoyed? I think that would be interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev R Posted June 10, 2012 Author Share Posted June 10, 2012 you'll roar eventually Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted June 10, 2012 Share Posted June 10, 2012 you'll roar eventually Wow man. It's like you've been listening in on my conversations Rev. I pace. A lot. A guy at work one day asked me why I pace. I said... I'm a lion waiting to roar. But then, that may have been directed at Deva. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted June 10, 2012 Share Posted June 10, 2012 I like this one. A world of dew, and within every dewdrop a world of struggle Issa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev R Posted June 10, 2012 Author Share Posted June 10, 2012 you'll roar eventually Wow man. It's like you've been listening in on my conversations Rev. I pace. A lot. A guy at work one day asked me why I pace. I said... I'm a lion waiting to roar. But then, that may have been directed at Deva. It was, but if you have use for it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted June 10, 2012 Share Posted June 10, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deva Posted June 10, 2012 Share Posted June 10, 2012 you'll roar eventually Thanks Rev! I am quietly working it out. By nature (or karma) not poetic or given to much metaphor, I have to find other ways of communicating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deva Posted June 10, 2012 Share Posted June 10, 2012 Why not post the poetry of other Buddhists you've seen and enjoyed? I think that would be interesting. I know there has been a lot of great poetry by Buddhists, but I haven't been looking at a lot of it; its mostly philosophy, which I haven't got a complete grasp of yet. Not enough to expound on it here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted June 10, 2012 Share Posted June 10, 2012 Why not post the poetry of other Buddhists you've seen and enjoyed? I think that would be interesting. I know there has been a lot of great poetry by Buddhists, but I haven't been looking at a lot of it; its mostly philosophy, which I haven't got a complete grasp of yet. Not enough to expound on it here. Alrighty. I'll do it then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts