(But if I had my druthers, I'd like to have *both*
Kabir and Schroedinger...)
Good stuff, Curtis. Intellectualizing Can Be Fun!
The fact that you can embrace both makes it fun to discuss this stuff.
I will give the rest of what you wrote more thought tomorrow.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
> <curtisdeltablues@> wrote:
> >
> [Quoting Schroedinger:]
> > Let us see whether we cannot draw the correct, noncontradictory
> > > conclusion from the following two premises:
> > >
> > > (i) My body functions as a pure mechanism according to the Laws
> > > of Nature [determinism].
> > >
> > > (ii) Yet I know, by incontrovertible direct experience, that I
> > > am directing its motions, of which I foresee the effects, that
> > > may be fateful and all-important, in which case I feel and take
> > > full responsibility for them [free will].
> > >
> > > The only possible inference from these two facts is, I think,
> > > that I--I in the widest meaning of the word, that is to say,
> > > every conscious mind that has ever said "I"--am the person, if
> > > any, who controls the "motion of the atoms" according to the Laws
> > > of Nature.
> >
> >
> > I think I can put my finger on where I disagree with him. it is
> > where he speaks on behalf of "every conscious mind that has ever
> > said 'I'" and then jumps to controlling the motion of atoms. He
> > should have said, "controls the motions of our own bodies". The
> > jump he is making is poetic but wrong. Just because we control our
> > own bodies does not give us the right to claim controlling atoms.
> > The atomic level is working on its own without the participation of
> > the consciousness that emerges from the functioning of our brains
> > which is driven by laws of nature at a completely different level.
> >
> > Am I missing something?
>
> I'm not sure. Let me take it point by point:
>
> First of all, he's saying that you, Curtis, are not
> controlling your own body, as far as science is
> concerned. Rather, it's the gunas, in TM-speak,
> that are doing it. That you, Curtis, think *you*
> are doing it is an illusion. "You" are, however,
> controlling the gunas from the transcendental
> perspective ("Be without the three gunas...")--not
> you the localized body and mind of Curtis, but You
> the universal, unbounded, nonlocal Self of everyone.
>
> Second, he's not saying we (our small selves)
> have the sense of controlling only our bodies but
> of controlling our minds as well; but the "statistico-
> deterministic" laws as observed by science say
> that's also an illusion.
>
> But I'm not sure either of these affect your
> point.
>
> What you're saying, if I understand you, is that
> the control of our thoughts is an emergent property
> that doesn't follow the same laws as those that
> control "atoms" (actually the elementary particles
> that compose the atoms).
>
> This claim, however, is just about as grand, and
> as unsupported by science, as his. I don't think
> your problem with what he says is that he's making
> too big a leap; I think it's that you disagree with
> the premise he's assuming as the very basis for his
> argument. He's saying the control of thought *does*
> follow the same laws as those that "control the atoms."
> You're saying control of thought is independent of
> the laws that "control the atoms."
>
> That's a perfectly respectable philosophical
> position, but it's also essentially a "mystical"
> one in that science cannot observe or test it, any
> more than it can observe or test his.
>
> At least, if I'm understanding you correctly...
>
> > Here is what I consider better poetry in this genre.
> >
> > Kabir through Bly through my memory:
> >
> > Inside this clay jug there are canyons and pine mountains,
> > and the maker of canyons and pine mountains.
> > All seven oceans are inside, and hundreds of millions of stars.
> > The acid that tests gold is there, and the one who judges jewels.,
> > And the music from the strings no one touches,
> > and the source of all water.
> > If you want the truth I will tell you the truth,
> > friend listen:
> > The God whom I love is inside.
> >
> > I think if we are going to make stuff up about reality this is the
> > bar to clear!
>
> It sure is magnificent poetry! It would be a very
> high bar to clear in *any* context.
>
> (But if I had my druthers, I'd like to have *both*
> Kabir and Schroedinger...)
>
> Good stuff, Curtis. Intellectualizing Can Be Fun!
>
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Yahoo! Groups gets a make over. See the new email design.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/XISQkA/lOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Or go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
