[Buddha-l] Moment of individuation

[Stanley J. Ziobro II]

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005, Bob Smith wrote:

>
>
> "Stanley J. Ziobro II" <ziobro at wfu.edu> wrote:
>
> > in the case of mechanics the original transfer of energy comes
> > from the outside whereas in the biochemical and higher spheres of activity
> > there is an interior dynamism with more complex transfers of energy.
>
>
> These activities are initiated and largely maintained at the discretion of we humans. From a subjective perspective, just stop eating or having sex for a month and see how many of these "interior dynamisms" still function in any manner that we humans would consider positive.

A machine does not go through a period of growth and individuation.  It is
simply an artifact, and so your remarks are to the point when it comes to
considerations of mechanics.  Vegetative, animate, and intellectual
creatures however do undergo various levels of growth and individuation.
Food, as an energy source, is needed to maintain the physical organism,
but the very dynamism that accounts for actual development cannot be
attibuted merely to this food.  The ability to assimilate the food
requires something more than the presence of food.  Another consideration
is that the organism develops in a particular manner with very specific
characteristics, and these teleological functions are not located in the
food source.

> From a more objective position, just start polluting the oceans or
over-harvesting the oceans assets, or start over-harvesting the world's forests, etc., etc. (You get my point.) and see how long these "interior dynamisms" continue to function in any way that one would consider helpful. It is we humans who work to orchestrate and dictate this flow of energy - for whatever reason.

There is no doubt that physical bodies require nourishment for
maintanence.  How are your "objective positon" generated assertions here
really different from your "subjective" ones above?

> > The question is whether these appearances can be reduced simply to the
> > subjects' mental activity, and failing that, whether the authentication of
> > every facet of reality rests upon measureability by some instrument.
>
> Of relevance here is the observation that all religions and philosophies are artifacts;

I think you misidentify your terms here.  An artifact is something made
from wood, stone, metals, etc.  Artifacts are used in religious rituals.
The articulation of what people think they are doing when they eneact
rituals, pray, meditate, and/or the theoretical expression of reflection
upon life (philosophy) are more properly "mentifacts."

> they are all created by humankind. Like all human creations, they are
designed to meet a need (or needs!). One of the utilities of the creation of religion is that it gives us something else to blame when our human activities run afoul of their intended outcomes (It was my karma; my past life! The devil made me do it! The stars were not aligned right!). Blaming someone or something else for our own failings has long been a favorite pastime of we humans. What the Buddhist position does, in my mind at least, is to throw the responsibility for our unsatisfactoriness back on us. This is done largely without the need for souls, spirits, saints, devils or other spooks.

I question whether expressions of religion are merely a compensation for
ignorance, fear, anger, and so forth.  Also, it is odd to me that you (or
anybody) would think (or seem to imply) that only Buddhist practices and
philosophies are the means towards being authentically human with all the
awareness, intelligence, understanding, reason, judgmet such authenticity
requires.

> There is no reason to make life any more complicated than it already is.

Expound upon thisd.

Regards,

Stan Ziobro