Intellectual Integrity

[Cittasanto]

care to explain?

First of all, I have no idea what your response to Geoff's msg is saying. But what I am saying, and what I do believe Geoff is saying is what I said above: One needs to keep in mind that in the Buddha's teachings truths are cognitions, not objective facts. The Buddha is not talking about the height of Everest. He is talking about being free of greed, hatred, and delusion, which is an experiential, cognitive process.

That is, in the Dhamma the only way truths are truly experienced and truly known (not as a matter of belief) is by cognition. The Four Noble Truths start with pointing to experience, not a matter of belief. Awakening is not something one must believe in in order for there to be awakening. It is what one experiences with the destruction of greed, hatred, and delusion.

If you have no idea what i was saying, how do you know the/a point was missed?

What I was saying was (to put it another way with a little extra) - Just because something is known in a particular way, or fully known at a certain point - and this can have its effect on the application of this knowledge - it doesn't actually stop something that is true from being true. Sacca is sacca, one may only need a more complete theory/way of measuring to get at a more exact understanding.

[Cittasanto]

but lets not forget about the silver rule

or the platinum rule: treat others in the way they like to be treated.

And: how do we follow such "rules" without conceit?

That would be where turning inward and observing out intent would come in.

[Cittasanto]

there will be recourse to faith, but being doubtful and using scepticism's tools are not the same thing, one part of empirical scepticism is accepting a workable model yet remaining open to a better one.

This reminds me of Bayesianism.

and a valid authority is as the Buddha said time and again, in various ways (particularly about practice and finding a teacher,) one that can be observed and tested.

How sure are we that the what the Buddha meant by "observed" and "tested" is similar to what sceptical empiricism means by the terms? Perhaps a better empricism for Buddhist religionists is William Jame's radical empiricsim (likewise, perhaps a better view of science for Buddhist religionists is to be found in Kuhn, Feyerabend et al as opposed to Gombrich's beloved Popperianism or the logical postivism of the Vienna Cirlce)?

James radical empiricism seams like a good start to me, but that is after looking at the Wiki and nothing else. Although I would say talking about supernatural beings (devas) does have its benefit at times.
There is allot of info on Bayesianism and without having the time to go through it all do you have any particular area or good synopsis to look at?

[Cittasanto]

Thanks.
What put me off was the "fact/values" instead of the "fact vs values."
I took that post to essentially be a condensed version of the one above regarding the quote in the OP, so won't reply to that.

Belief that the fact/value (fact/opinion) distinction is valid is just another opinion.

could you expand on this?

The Collapse of the Fact/Value Dichotomy by Hilary Putnam

Excerpt from Richard Rorty's review of the above.

Putnam's dislike of science-worship is just one example of his distrust of all philosophies that stray too far from common sense, from what he sometimes...calls "the ordinary...." Using a strategy pioneered by Dewey, Putnam shows how his opponents have turned commonsensical distinctions into philosophical dichotomies (fact vs. value, objective vs. subjective, mind vs. matter) and then, typically, tried to eliminate one side of the dichotomy in favor of the other.

I would agree with this quotation in general. But just to pick up on mind vs. matter, within the canon we have namarupa (name and form), internal & external.... particularly noticable with the Internal & external is the tetralima. sometimes things can be one or the other (or examined at either frame of reference) both, or neither. although the jain do have a seven-fold model

syād-asti—in some ways, it is,
syād-nāsti—in some ways, it is not,
syād-asti-nāsti—in some ways, it is, and it is not,
syād-asti-avaktavyaḥ—in some ways, it is, and it is indescribable,
syād-nāsti-avaktavyaḥ—in some ways, it is not, and it is indescribable,
syād-asti-nāsti-avaktavyaḥ—in some ways, it is, it is not, and it is indescribable,
syād-avaktavyaḥ—in some ways, it is indescribable.

although this does seam to be a little bit too far.

I will take this opportunity to share some of the links - rather than make a new reply - of pages I have saved recently (although I would generally just do a search when my interest peaked for whatever reason). Although these are just the pages I happened to bookmark, not that they are of particular importance.
https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/588/04/
http://papyr.com/hypertextbooks/comp1/logic.htm
http://www.bestlibrary.org/ssmedia/2009 ... acies.html

[tiltbillings]

care to explain?

First of all, I have no idea what your response to Geoff's msg is saying. But what I am saying, and what I do believe Geoff is saying is what I said above: One needs to keep in mind that in the Buddha's teachings truths are cognitions, not objective facts. The Buddha is not talking about the height of Everest. He is talking about being free of greed, hatred, and delusion, which is an experiential, cognitive process.

That is, in the Dhamma the only way truths are truly experienced and truly known (not as a matter of belief) is by cognition. The Four Noble Truths start with pointing to experience, not a matter of belief. Awakening is not something one must believe in in order for there to be awakening. It is what one experiences with the destruction of greed, hatred, and delusion.

If you have no idea what i was saying, how do you know the/a point was missed?/quote]I exaggerated.

What I was saying was (to put it another way with a little extra) - Just because something is known in a particular way, or fully known at a certain point - and this can have its effect on the application of this knowledge - it doesn't actually stop something that is true from being true. Sacca is sacca, one may only need a more complete theory/way of measuring to get at a more exact understanding.

As I said, truths in the Buddha's teachings in the suttas are cognitions.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

As I said, truths in the Buddha's teachings in the suttas are cognitions.

Like jati...?

Metta,
Retro.

[tiltbillings]

Greetings,

As I said, truths in the Buddha's teachings in the suttas are cognitions.

Like jati...?

Metta,
Retro.

jati? It depends, but that is not say that when stub your toe on a perceived rock, it won't hurt.

[Cittasanto]

As I said, truths in the Buddha's teachings in the suttas are cognitions.

and does that make them less true?

[tiltbillings]

As I said, truths in the Buddha's teachings in the suttas are cognitions.

and does that make them less true?

Less than true than what?

[Cittasanto]

As I said, truths in the Buddha's teachings in the suttas are cognitions.

and does that make them less true?

Less than true than what?

than anything else that is true, real, in line with reality.

[tiltbillings]

and does that make them less true?

Less than true than what?

than anything else that is true, real, in line with reality.

You seem to want truth to "be out there." It looks, in the suttas, that truth really more to do with one's cognitions that are no longer colored by greed, hatred, and delusion. If you want truth to be "out there," fine. I have no intetest in getting into that sort of tar-baby argument. Simply, where does liberating knowledge happen, and what is it knowledge of? Which is now is as much as I am going to say here.

[danieLion]

Cittasanto,
I'm having computer issues and probably won't be posting much fore another few days but I will definitely get back here first thing when it's fixed. Those links look very promising. Thanks a bunch.

[danieLion]

...just to pick up on mind vs. matter, within the canon we have namarupa (name and form), internal & external.... particularly noticable with the Internal & external is the tetralima.

I'm currently of the opinion that the Buddha taught a primitive and now anachronistic psychology that has been much improved upon since its inception. This is not to dismiss but properly contextualize.

[Cittasanto]

than anything else that is true, real, in line with reality.

You seem to want truth to "be out there." It looks, in the suttas, that truth really more to do with one's cognitions that are no longer colored by greed, hatred, and delusion. If you want truth to be "out there," fine. I have no intetest in getting into that sort of tar-baby argument. Simply, where does liberating knowledge happen, and what is it knowledge of? Which is now is as much as I am going to say here.

Not at all, Truth is where it is.

[Cittasanto]

...just to pick up on mind vs. matter, within the canon we have namarupa (name and form), internal & external.... particularly noticable with the Internal & external is the tetralima.

I'm currently of the opinion that the Buddha taught a primitive and now anachronistic psychology that has been much improved upon since its inception. This is not to dismiss but properly contextualize.

I think Buddhism is what it is depending on how you look at it. It can be a religion, psychology, way of life, philosophy....
I think the work of Alain debottom (sp?) is closer now, to what Buddhism was then at that time.
Studying psychology can help frame the teachings, but so can studying philosophy, theology and a number of other subjects. but no one area shows the full spectrum of the teachings.

[danieLion]

...just to pick up on mind vs. matter, within the canon we have namarupa (name and form), internal & external.... particularly noticable with the Internal & external is the tetralima.

I'm currently of the opinion that the Buddha taught a primitive and now anachronistic psychology that has been much improved upon since its inception. This is not to dismiss but properly contextualize.

I think Buddhism is what it is depending on how you look at it. It can be a religion, psychology, way of life, philosophy....
I think the work of Alain debottom (sp?) is closer now, to what Buddhism was then at that time.
Studying psychology can help frame the teachings, but so can studying philosophy, theology and a number of other subjects. but no one area shows the full spectrum of the teachings.

you miss my point; AS a psychology, the teachings are outdated; AS a philosophy--outdated; AS a theology--outdated...the teachings are an anachronism because they only "work" in a certain domain (the time and place of the Buddha); they're just the Buddha's opinions; impressive opinions, yes, but still just opinions

[polarbuddha101]

you miss my point; the teachings are outdated; AS a philosophy--outdated; ...the teachings are an anachronism because they only "work" in a certain domain (the time and place of the Buddha); they're just the Buddha's opinions; impressive opinions, yes, but still just opinions

What led you to this conclusion?

[danieLion]

you miss my point; the teachings are outdated; AS a philosophy--outdated; ...the teachings are an anachronism because they only "work" in a certain domain (the time and place of the Buddha); they're just the Buddha's opinions; impressive opinions, yes, but still just opinions

What led you to this conclusion?

It's not a conclusion and I wasn't led.

[polarbuddha101]

you miss my point; the teachings are outdated; AS a philosophy--outdated; ...the teachings are an anachronism because they only "work" in a certain domain (the time and place of the Buddha); they're just the Buddha's opinions; impressive opinions, yes, but still just opinions

What led you to this conclusion?

It's not a conclusion and I wasn't led.

Okay, to put it another way, why do you think that the teachings of the buddha are outdated across the board, i.e. as a psychology, philosophy, etc.? I would imagine you have some reasons for making this assertion. I'm more interested in why you think it's outdated as a philosophy, a psychology, and a way of life than anything else.

[Cittasanto]

you miss my point; AS a psychology, the teachings are outdated; AS a philosophy--outdated; AS a theology--outdated...the teachings are an anachronism because they only "work" in a certain domain (the time and place of the Buddha); they're just the Buddha's opinions; impressive opinions, yes, but still just opinions

and how do you come to those conclusions?