Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A Third Open Letter to Ravi Chivukula
On Dec 29, 2011, at 12:02 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: Zoroastrianism! DAMN I didn't see that one coming! They don't even have a crystal cathedral or a presence on basic cable or a hot celeb spokesperson or anything. WTF! Well, not since Freddie Mercury died.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A Third Open Letter to Ravi Chivukula
On Dec 29, 2011, at 10:33 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote: This excellent quote really strikes at the heart of Maharishi's intellectual arrogance and fantasy. It illustrates a fascinating quality of our brains to misjudge the value of hindsight. Looking forward you can't predict 9-11, but once it has happened it all looks so obvious how it got there, that it seems ridiculous that we missed the "signs". But its surety is an illusion that we are vulnerable to. We forget how complex the data is looking forward and how impossible it is to predict in a advance in the deluge of date. Turning back to our Vedic predictors, we have a metaphorical language and once we know the scientific principles, may give more of an illusion than is warranted that they knew about what we know today. This is not to demean the tremendous contributions to science and culture, which may have included facts like the true planetary relationships ahead of these discoveries in the West. The point that in the West we have a triumphalist attitude and a lack of understanding of the true contributions of the East is well taken. But lets not get carried away with how much detail they actually had nailed down. We actually have learned a few things since Vedic times, and our application of the scientific method, where appropriate, had advanced our clarity of understanding our world tremendously. It is one thing to say Surya carries the sun across the sky in a chariot, it is another to make a solar panel to power a TV that can play the Jersey Shore. (Oh is Snooky drunk AGAIN!) Well such freethinking is un-Vedic! Manusmriti, described as the "pivotal text of the dominant form of Hinduism" (Doniger and Smith 1991, xvii) declared free thinking one of the cardinal sins to be punished by ex-communication: "The Veda [shruti] should be known as revealed canon, and the teachings of religion [smriti] as the tradition. These two are indisputable in all matters, for religion arose out of the two of them. Any twice-born man who disregards these two roots of religion, because he relies on the teachings of logic, should be excommunicated by virtuous people as an atheist and a reviler of the Veda" (Manusmriti, chapter 2, verse 10 - 11, emphasis added, see Doniger and Smith 1991). Not exactly a ringing endorsement of scientific temper! (For even more radical proscriptions against questioning the Vedas, as laid out in some of the most revered texts, see Chattopadhyaya 1976, 191 - 194,) The law book of Manu and the ethos it prescribed had already become an established source of authority by the early centuries of the Common Era. Theories were rejected or accepted depending upon their agreement with tradition. The heterodox schools which did not accept the authority of the Vedas were either reduced to a caricature (especially the materialist schools of Charvaka and Lokayata), or absorbed into the Vedic tradition (as with the originally materialistic school of Sankhya which was assimilated into the Upanishadic teachings in the Bhagavad Gita, and as with the Brahminization of the teachings of Buddha). Those who sing praises of Hindu hospitability to reason and innovation turn a blind eye to the contrary historical evidence described famously by Alberuni (973 — 1048 CE, the renowned Islamic mathematician, astronomer, and political philosopher who has left behind a vivid record of his sojourn in India in the early years of the eleventh century. Alberuni describes how the most eminent Indian astronomers like Varahamihira (sixth century CE) and Brahmagupta (seventh or eighth century CE), knowing fully well the cause of lunar and solar eclipses, bowed to tradition and accepted the myth of a demon's head swallowing the sun or the moon. These are well-known facts of Indian intellectual history. The myth of critical thinking in the dominant Hindu tradition can only be maintained by ignoring these facts. (ibidem)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A Third Open Letter to Ravi Chivukula
On Dec 29, 2011, at 9:46 AM, richardatrwilliamsdotus wrote: Ravi Chivukula: > And then remember Indians made great progress > in to the Science of the inner, of these > mysterious, unknown energies... > It's not just the inner aspect that the ancient Indians made great progress in. Don't forget that the ancient Indians had discovered the ratio of pi, the circumference to diameter ratio from paridhi vyas anupati, over a thousand years before Pythagoras. Science historians have long agreed that the international numeral system (1, 2, 3,), based on the concepts of decimal placement and zero were invented by the ancient Indians, as well as the decimal system itself. Now, it has been discovered that the ancient Indus Civilization inhabitants may have invented the alphabet! Here is a partial, and somewhat dated list of Hindutva claims for priority in scientific discoveries taken from D. B. Thengadi's much- cited 1983 lecture, "Modernization without Westernization": 1. The well-known theorem of Pythagoras who was described by King Clement of Alexandria as "pupil of a Brahmin." 2. The atomic theory of the West which was anticipated thousands of years ago by pramanuvad of Kanaad. 3. Dialecticism of Hegel and Marx, which was first envisaged and systematized by Kapil Muni. 4. The fact that it is the earth that moves around the sun... which was proved by Copernicus, and more than a thousand years before Copernicus by Arya Bhatta, 5. Materialism of Democratus (sic), of which the first ever sutra was written by Brushaspati centuries back... 6. Scientific concepts of space and time explained by Einstein and enunciated first by Vedanta philosophers. 7. The scientific definition of matter given for the first time to modern science by Heisenberg and to Hindus by Patanjali. 8. The relativity of space and time, the unity of the universe, a space-time con- tinuum, established in ancient times by Vedantic thinkers and proved in this century by Einstein. 9. The process of scientific philosophical thinking initiated by Parmesthi Prajapitha of "nassdeeya suktha" and climaxed by Einstein. (Thengadi 1983, 5) In addition, just about every "miracle" like the Ganesha idols "drinking" milk, every age-old ritual (fire sacrifices, or yagna), and Sanskrit chant (e.g., the Gayatri mantra) and every superstition like fire ceremonies for rains and vastu shastra (architecture that tries to align built structures with cosmic energy, the Indian equiv- alent of the Chinese Feng Shui) has been declared to be "scientific."' Just about every verse of the Vedas, which has anything even remotely to do with elements of nature, whether literally or metaphorically, has been declared to contain "scientific" facts, including the speed of light, the distance of the sun from the earth, and other such cosmological constants — corresponding to the last decimal point! — to the values obtained by modern physics. It has been claimed, for example, that the Rig Veda had discovered the Newtonian laws of gravity as well as Einstein's theory of relativity and calculated the velocity of light, discovered cosmic rays, so on and so forth. Nearly all important discoveries of biological sciences are right there in the sacred books as well, from the discovery of photosynthesis, the knowledge of molecular receptors of Ayurvedic medicines, microscopy, even test-tube babies, etc, If the apologists are to be believed, the Vedas were actually engineering manuals, describing precisely those technological advances that have already taken place in the West, from airplanes to submarines, running on everything from solar power to nuclear energy. Everything of value that Western science and technology has produced, even if the "value" lies in warfare and destruction, is claimed to be presaged by Hindu holy men of a bygone era. The examples in the above paragraph are taken from the recent output of only two think-tanks — the Dharam Hinduja Foundation with centers in India as well as in Columbia and Cambridge universities, and Prajna Bharati, a "national forum for thinkers with a nationalist orientation."' There are many academics, with degrees in sciences, many of them working in the United States and Canada — notably, Subhash Kak, David Frawley, N. S. Rajaram (now in India), Ram Mohan Roy, the 'Vedic creationists" associated with the Hare Krishna movement and the Ramakrishna Mission, the "unified field" "physicists" associated with Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, and the monks of Ramakrishna Mission's Vedanta centers around the world — who are publishing books claiming that Vedic literature is actually a record of scientific discoveries. Needless to say, all the discoveries are invariably exactly those that modern science made later on! -Prophets Looking Backwards Meera Nanda
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A Third Open Letter to Ravi Chivukula
Well, after much thought and deep analysis, and conference with a close friend of mine, it is determined that is should say " a stack of fuck shit." Just in case you want to get creative or anything > > From: obbajeeba >To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com >Sent: Sunday, December 25, 2011 6:58 PM >Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: A Third Open Letter to Ravi Chivukula > > > >http://vimeo.com/13897452 > >--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn wrote: >> >> Brazil...they are way ahead of us in so many ways...and way behind us in so >> many others >> >> Now, welcome back.  My situation is partly your fault, you gotta know >> that...:) >> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Bb6CrqXoR0&feature=fvwrel >> >> >> >> >> > >> > From: obbajeeba >> >To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com >> >Sent: Sunday, December 25, 2011 6:14 PM >> >Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: A Third Open Letter to Ravi Chivukula >> > >> > >> > >> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGRfDNm_ndo&feature=related >> > >> >--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn wrote: >> >> >> >> The brazilians are not to be denied >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > From: authfriend >> >> >To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com >> >> >Sent: Sunday, December 25, 2011 5:09 PM >> >> >Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: A Third Open Letter to Ravi Chivukula >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> No Judy. Not "wisdom incarnate", not to worry. But, then >> >> >> again, you always caveat your responses :) It's so sweet. >> >> >> Ahh, what will be will be. >> >> >> >> >> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TAdVhpUTV8&feature=related >> >> > >> >> >Oh, is that wonderful. Intoxicating. >> >> > >> >> >(What is it about those Portuguese "sh" sounds at the >> >> >ends of words that's so goddamn sexy??) >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A Third Open Letter to Ravi Chivukula
Yes, I know him (indirectly - Seattle) and he worked on a song with Maktub...of which, this is not, but it is Maktub. Thanks for meeting me where I'm at Obbajihere ya go and I gotta run... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NoTGiabL1Sg > > From: obbajeeba >To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com >Sent: Sunday, December 25, 2011 6:58 PM >Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: A Third Open Letter to Ravi Chivukula > > > >http://vimeo.com/13897452 > >--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn wrote: >> >> Brazil...they are way ahead of us in so many ways...and way behind us in so >> many others >> >> Now, welcome back.  My situation is partly your fault, you gotta know >> that...:) >> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Bb6CrqXoR0&feature=fvwrel >> >> >> >> >> > >> > From: obbajeeba >> >To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com >> >Sent: Sunday, December 25, 2011 6:14 PM >> >Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: A Third Open Letter to Ravi Chivukula >> > >> > >> > >> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGRfDNm_ndo&feature=related >> > >> >--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn wrote: >> >> >> >> The brazilians are not to be denied >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > From: authfriend >> >> >To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com >> >> >Sent: Sunday, December 25, 2011 5:09 PM >> >> >Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: A Third Open Letter to Ravi Chivukula >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> No Judy. Not "wisdom incarnate", not to worry. But, then >> >> >> again, you always caveat your responses :) It's so sweet. >> >> >> Ahh, what will be will be. >> >> >> >> >> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TAdVhpUTV8&feature=related >> >> > >> >> >Oh, is that wonderful. Intoxicating. >> >> > >> >> >(What is it about those Portuguese "sh" sounds at the >> >> >ends of words that's so goddamn sexy??) >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A Third Open Letter to Ravi Chivukula
Brazil...they are way ahead of us in so many ways...and way behind us in so many others Now, welcome back. My situation is partly your fault, you gotta know that...:) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Bb6CrqXoR0&feature=fvwrel > > From: obbajeeba >To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com >Sent: Sunday, December 25, 2011 6:14 PM >Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: A Third Open Letter to Ravi Chivukula > > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGRfDNm_ndo&feature=related > >--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn wrote: >> >> The brazilians are not to be denied >> >> >> >> > >> > From: authfriend >> >To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com >> >Sent: Sunday, December 25, 2011 5:09 PM >> >Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: A Third Open Letter to Ravi Chivukula >> > >> > >> >Â >> >--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn wrote: >> >> >> >> No Judy. Not "wisdom incarnate", not to worry. But, then >> >> again, you always caveat your responses :) It's so sweet. >> >> Ahh, what will be will be. >> >> >> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TAdVhpUTV8&feature=related >> > >> >Oh, is that wonderful. Intoxicating. >> > >> >(What is it about those Portuguese "sh" sounds at the >> >ends of words that's so goddamn sexy??) >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A Third Open Letter to Ravi Chivukula
The brazilians are not to be denied > > From: authfriend >To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com >Sent: Sunday, December 25, 2011 5:09 PM >Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: A Third Open Letter to Ravi Chivukula > > > >--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn wrote: >> >> No Judy. Not "wisdom incarnate", not to worry. But, then >> again, you always caveat your responses :) It's so sweet. >> Ahh, what will be will be. >> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TAdVhpUTV8&feature=related > >Oh, is that wonderful. Intoxicating. > >(What is it about those Portuguese "sh" sounds at the >ends of words that's so goddamn sexy??) > > > > >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A Third Open Letter to Ravi Chivukula
Do you think I can float this as the response to Robin's five-part post? This version is incredibleand within the 7 minutes...it repeats. Did Rauncy post this first? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wV1FrqwZyKw > > From: authfriend >To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com >Sent: Sunday, December 25, 2011 5:12 PM >Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: A Third Open Letter to Ravi Chivukula > > > >--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba wrote: >> >> Judy, you are wisdom incarnate. I agree with Denise. >> Merry Hanakristmasah! >> >> My hands are still tied to my kitchen and I love reading what >> you both write. : ) > >We write only for your personal enjoyment, dear obbajeeba. >You *better* love it, or we'll never untie your hands. ;-) > > > > >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A Third Open Letter to Ravi Chivukula
No Judy. Not "wisdom incarnate", not to worry. But, then again, you always caveat your responses :) It's so sweet. Ahh, what will be will be. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TAdVhpUTV8&feature=related > > From: authfriend >To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com >Sent: Sunday, December 25, 2011 4:47 PM >Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: A Third Open Letter to Ravi Chivukula > > > >--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn wrote: >> >> Oh my fucking (in the most respectful of ways) god.  This >> is the answer I've been waiting for - finally, some real >> clarity.  Jesus (in honor of Christmas) Judy, you are the >> bomb. > >Yikes. Please, Emily, note my caveat below: "I'm flying >blind here." It's too big of a hassle to stick in "at >least, as I understand it" after every statement, but >please insert it mentally before you decide I'm Wisdom >Incarnate!! > >> The kids are gone, bless their hearts, and it is still >> Christmas.  Now I think I'm ready for the re-read of the >> five part post.  I have it all in a draft email to myself, >> except for number 5.  I think that one was deleted.  So, >> Curtis, if you want me to send you the links to the 5 parts, >> you let me know :)  >> >> >> > >> > From: authfriend >> >To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com >> >Sent: Sunday, December 25, 2011 3:02 PM >> >Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: A Third Open Letter to Ravi Chivukula >> > >> > >> > >> >--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, zarzari_786 wrote: >> >> >> >> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: >> >> > >> >> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, zarzari_786 >> >> > wrote: >> >> > > >> >> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn >> >> > wrote: >> >> > > > >> >> > > > But the nature of being a human being means for me having >> >> > > > the experience of being radically isolated and detached >> >> > > > from the external world. I do not have anything in common >> >> > > > with the stars, the moon, the flowers, the sky, the animals. >> >> > > > What I have is my first person ontology, and that ontology >> >> > > > cannot be mixed with anything that is not that ontology. >> >> > > > >> >> > > > Dear Robin, I am trying to understand this statement. Â Is >> >> > > > your experience of yourself now in alignment with John >> >> > > > Searle's philosophy on "first person ontology"? >> >> > > >> >> > > Interesting find Emily, this is what the wiki says: >> >> > > >> >> > > "It can be tempting to see the theory as a kind of property >> >> > > dualism, since, in Searle's view, a person's mental properties >> >> > > are categorically different from his or her micro-physical >> >> > > properties. The latter have "third-person ontology" whereas >> >> > > the former have "first-person ontology." Micro-structure is >> >> > > accessible objectively by any number of people, as when >> >> > > several brain surgeons inspect a patient's cerebral hemispheres. >> >> > > But pain or desire or belief are accessible subjectively by the >> >> > > person who has the pain or desire or belief, and no one else has >> >> > > that mode of access." >> >> > > >> >> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_naturalism >> >> > > >> >> > > If I understand this correctly, "first-person ontology" can >> >> > > only be subjectivly observed, and therefore refer to a >> >> > > consciousness process that is not observable by objective >> >> > > science. In a way it seems to be synonymous with the >> >> > > consciousness of a subject himself, but NOT, as Robin alludes >> >> > > to, with his sense of a separate I (I think thats what he is >> >> > > refering to). From what I read in this article, it is only >> >> > > about consciousness, being a property of brain processes, but >> >> > > 'as subjectivly experienced'. If I am not mistaken, this has >> >> > > nothing to do with free will, or it being the consciousness >> >> > > of a human being vs an animal. Whereas Robin seems to take it >> >> > > synonymous for the awareness of an 'I', that feels and is >> >> > > responsible for all his actions. To use such a relatively >> >> > > rare term like 'first-person ontology', for basically the >> >> > > sense of an 'I' and Doership, seems to me somewhat concealing >> >> > > rather than explaining. It certainly sound impressive. >> >> > >> >> > The term isn't that rare in discussions of philosophy >> >> > and consciousness, actually. Searle didn't invent it, >> >> > nor does he "own" it. >> >> >> >> Okay, I didn't know this. Probably like Emily, I just googled >> >> the term and the above wiki came up first. From the way it was >> >> expressed I had the (wrong) impression it was his term. >> >> >> >> > The term itself really doesn't >> >> > need much explanation. It may sound impressive to those >> >> > who aren't familiar with it, but it's a simple concept. >> >> >> >> And that is? Or what is the concept behind third-p
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A Third Open Letter to Ravi Chivukula
Oh my fucking (in the most respectful of ways) god. This is the answer I've been waiting for - finally, some real clarity. Jesus (in honor of Christmas) Judy, you are the bomb. The kids are gone, bless their hearts, and it is still Christmas. Now I think I'm ready for the re-read of the five part post. I have it all in a draft email to myself, except for number 5. I think that one was deleted. So, Curtis, if you want me to send you the links to the 5 parts, you let me know :) > > From: authfriend >To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com >Sent: Sunday, December 25, 2011 3:02 PM >Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: A Third Open Letter to Ravi Chivukula > > > >--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, zarzari_786 wrote: >> >> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: >> > >> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, zarzari_786 >> > wrote: >> > > >> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn >> > wrote: >> > > > >> > > > But the nature of being a human being means for me having >> > > > the experience of being radically isolated and detached >> > > > from the external world. I do not have anything in common >> > > > with the stars, the moon, the flowers, the sky, the animals. >> > > > What I have is my first person ontology, and that ontology >> > > > cannot be mixed with anything that is not that ontology. >> > > > >> > > > Dear Robin, I am trying to understand this statement. Â Is >> > > > your experience of yourself now in alignment with John >> > > > Searle's philosophy on "first person ontology"? >> > > >> > > Interesting find Emily, this is what the wiki says: >> > > >> > > "It can be tempting to see the theory as a kind of property >> > > dualism, since, in Searle's view, a person's mental properties >> > > are categorically different from his or her micro-physical >> > > properties. The latter have "third-person ontology" whereas >> > > the former have "first-person ontology." Micro-structure is >> > > accessible objectively by any number of people, as when >> > > several brain surgeons inspect a patient's cerebral hemispheres. >> > > But pain or desire or belief are accessible subjectively by the >> > > person who has the pain or desire or belief, and no one else has >> > > that mode of access." >> > > >> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_naturalism >> > > >> > > If I understand this correctly, "first-person ontology" can >> > > only be subjectivly observed, and therefore refer to a >> > > consciousness process that is not observable by objective >> > > science. In a way it seems to be synonymous with the >> > > consciousness of a subject himself, but NOT, as Robin alludes >> > > to, with his sense of a separate I (I think thats what he is >> > > refering to). From what I read in this article, it is only >> > > about consciousness, being a property of brain processes, but >> > > 'as subjectivly experienced'. If I am not mistaken, this has >> > > nothing to do with free will, or it being the consciousness >> > > of a human being vs an animal. Whereas Robin seems to take it >> > > synonymous for the awareness of an 'I', that feels and is >> > > responsible for all his actions. To use such a relatively >> > > rare term like 'first-person ontology', for basically the >> > > sense of an 'I' and Doership, seems to me somewhat concealing >> > > rather than explaining. It certainly sound impressive. >> > >> > The term isn't that rare in discussions of philosophy >> > and consciousness, actually. Searle didn't invent it, >> > nor does he "own" it. >> >> Okay, I didn't know this. Probably like Emily, I just googled >> the term and the above wiki came up first. From the way it was >> expressed I had the (wrong) impression it was his term. >> >> > The term itself really doesn't >> > need much explanation. It may sound impressive to those >> > who aren't familiar with it, but it's a simple concept. >> >> And that is? Or what is the concept behind third-person ontology? > >First-person ontology: only I can know what it's >like to be me. Third-person ontology: you can >understand what it's like to be me via what I tell >you or what you observe of me, but it'll be quite >limited and may be false (because I'm lying or >otherwise behaving deceptively, or because I'm >communicating poorly or you're understanding >poorly). > >Your understanding of what it's like to be me is >a function of *your* first-person ontology: only >you can know what it's like to be you trying to >grasp what it's like to be me. Only I can know what >it's like to be me trying to grasp what it's like >to be you trying to grasp what it's like to be me. > >;-) > >or ;-(, depending... > >This isn't the *grammatical* third person, BTW. It >just means anybody other than me. (I just did a >search for "second person ontology" to make sure and >came up with only one hit, on an analysis of a poem >by e.e. cummings, where it refers to a literary >device.) > >>
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A Third Open Letter to Ravi Chivukula
Thank you both...I realized after I snipped this and re-read the Searle stuff that in fact, I was comparing apples to oranges, essentially, as Judy pointed out here. Almost always, Robin's posts just have to be looked at in the context of his whole statement and his relaying of his experience. Snipping always results in a "miss." Often, for me, I have a delayed understanding of what he says, and "snipping" and asking for clarification is premature. The term "first person ontology" is a new one for me and I have looked it up repeatedly, and wanted Robin to explain how he defines it for himself. Judy, I think what you are saying captures the essence of how Robin uses this term in his writings...I get this. > > From: authfriend >To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com >Sent: Sunday, December 25, 2011 9:46 AM >Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: A Third Open Letter to Ravi Chivukula > > > >--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, zarzari_786 >wrote: >> >> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn >wrote: >> > >> > But the nature of being a human being means for me having >> > the experience of being radically isolated and detached >> > from the external world. I do not have anything in common >> > with the stars, the moon, the flowers, the sky, the animals. >> > What I have is my first person ontology, and that ontology >> > cannot be mixed with anything that is not that ontology. >> > >> > Dear Robin, I am trying to understand this statement. Â Is >> > your experience of yourself now in alignment with John >> > Searle's philosophy on "first person ontology"? >> >> Interesting find Emily, this is what the wiki says: >> >> "It can be tempting to see the theory as a kind of property >> dualism, since, in Searle's view, a person's mental properties >> are categorically different from his or her micro-physical >> properties. The latter have "third-person ontology" whereas >> the former have "first-person ontology." Micro-structure is >> accessible objectively by any number of people, as when >> several brain surgeons inspect a patient's cerebral hemispheres. >> But pain or desire or belief are accessible subjectively by the >> person who has the pain or desire or belief, and no one else has >> that mode of access." >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_naturalism >> >> If I understand this correctly, "first-person ontology" can >> only be subjectivly observed, and therefore refer to a >> consciousness process that is not observable by objective >> science. In a way it seems to be synonymous with the >> consciousness of a subject himself, but NOT, as Robin alludes >> to, with his sense of a separate I (I think thats what he is >> refering to). From what I read in this article, it is only >> about consciousness, being a property of brain processes, but >> 'as subjectivly experienced'. If I am not mistaken, this has >> nothing to do with free will, or it being the consciousness >> of a human being vs an animal. Whereas Robin seems to take it >> synonymous for the awareness of an 'I', that feels and is >> responsible for all his actions. To use such a relatively >> rare term like 'first-person ontology', for basically the >> sense of an 'I' and Doership, seems to me somewhat concealing >> rather than explaining. It certainly sound impressive. > >The term isn't that rare in discussions of philosophy >and consciousness, actually. Searle didn't invent it, >nor does he "own" it. The term itself really doesn't >need much explanation. It may sound impressive to those >who aren't familiar with it, but it's a simple concept. > >It can be used in many different contexts and for many >different purposes. Searle makes use of it for his >purposes; Robin makes use of it for his purposes. What >requires explanation is the purposes, and Robin has >explained his pretty thoroughly: he's arguing against the >reality of Unity Consciousness, in which first-person >ontology is experienced to be illusionary and universal >consciousness the reality. As I understand him, he's >saying first-person ontology is the reality and universal >consciousness the illusion. > >Nothing like Unity Consciousness figures in Searle's use >of the term; it isn't on his radar screen at all. Far as >I can tell, the closest he comes is to deny panpsychism. >He's using the term "first-person ontology" in the same >sense Robin is, but in an entirely different context to >make an entirely different type of argument: to demolish >functional materialism (although he also denies dualism, >which some see as contradictory). Searle does argue for >a form of free will, but it's based in quantum >indeterminism, not the classical form asserted by Robin. > >Searle's arguments are considerably more sophisticated >philosophically and scientifically than Robin's, as it >happens; Robin's are experientially and theologically >based and are deeply personal. > >In any case, it's pretty much coincidental that Sea
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A Third Open Letter to Ravi Chivukula
On Dec 23, 2011, at 2:22 AM, maskedzebra wrote: Rather than "just list three areas in which [I] no longer have the ability to become One with [my] environment, and those [I] interact with", I am going to give you ten. Oh joy. Still not much better than the Encyclicals to Curtis vols. I - V, even though somewhat shorter. I'd give it a 4 on the Dancing in Your Own Pain scale. FYI a "4" usually involves stubbing the great toe while attempting to dance, sans pain. Irony again. Before the wash was done. Shalst we ever see the Sutras of Robindra?
