UnderGround Forums
 

SBGI >> The fallacy of "goal" setting. . .

| Share | Email | Subscribe | Check IPs

8/29/05 12:11 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
vermonter
243 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 29-Aug-05
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 5107
You guys are on the ball! Dave answered before i even edited in the correct spelling of John Frankl ;) Matt, I have enjoyed this discussion, and i have read your post well. However, i feel as though we have deviated too far from the topic at hand (in a necessary fashion, yes) for it to be prudent for me to discuss any further. The time-requirement to answer your epistemelogical concerns alone is enough to (and has, historically speaking) fill the pages of countless texts. I feel as though your thoughts on making case examples in the first place is too far removed from my own. I wish i knew a better way to discuss the issue with you. Dave has hit the nail on the head with his argument about the stipulations themselves, but your view on the very foundation of making examples seems too different to reconcile. Anyhow, i didnt want to leave it "as is." I wanted to let you know that i have appreciated your time. Dave, Part of our confusion, i think, is that i'm arguing my points from the discussion with Matt in our own argument, but i'm not sure your position is the same as his ;) Having lived in rural Vermont my entire life, and spending vast tracts of my time as a youth in the fields and in the woods, i assure you that i have experienced more of the sort of connection with nature (at least i believe this to be the case? that you reference than almost anyone. I am also no stranger to the television, to the computer, to books, etc. and no matter what you might call it, or feel about it, i, personally, find a great deal of personal value in all of it. Also, i think your position is somewhat different from what i feel is the position of philisophical Zen. You are still ok with desires (in a similar fashion to the stoics), but seek detachment from them in a way other than that is immediately natural. This is your personal philosophy, it seems to me, because you are (gathered from one of your statements) a dualist. Zen, from my limited study in it, is an Idealist philosophy, in which the only accepted item in its ontology is Consciousness or something similar. In that case, eliminations of all physical desires is an acceptable practice, since they are (or might be) merely errors in consciousness anyway, and cause a disruption of peace. However, i think this position is a mistake. Of course i do, considering that i am a materialist, as well as a hard incompatibilist. As such, i think there is little fundamental difference between my case example and an "accidental" example and i will continue to appeal to the difference between the two, since (other than personal feelings on the issue) i have not heard what i feel to be a solid rational objection. In any case. Considering our differences in ontology, i fear our debate might be moot, or at least, better off discussing more fundamental problems anyway, else we will never be satisfied. Thanks again, to both of you, for a good discussion. -doug-
8/29/05 1:42 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Matt Thornton
6 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 29-Aug-05 01:42 PM
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 2726
No worries Doug, I appreciate your input. take care
9/3/05 1:46 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
mandalalisten
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 03-Sep-05
Member Since: 01/27/2003
Posts: 423
I'm a recovering dualist. Dave

| Share | Email | Subscribe | Check IPs

Reply Post

You must log in to post a reply. Click here to login.