[Buddha-l] Moment of individuation

[Stanley J. Ziobro II]

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005, Bob Smith wrote:

> "Stanley J. Ziobro II" <ziobro at wfu.edu> wrote:
>
> > A machine does not go through a period of growth and individuation.
>
>
> Really, Stanley? Have you checked the latest offerings from your local automotive dealer? Or computer seller? Or cell’ phone provider? Machines are growing and individualizing faster than the marketing gurus can keep up.

Really, Robert, do you think that equating the production of artifacts
with inner dynamic boichemical or mental processes is the point here?
These artifacts are the resultof applied human intelligence.  They are
artificial unities whose unities are recognized by the juxtaposition of
their parts.

> > The ability to assimilate the food requires something more
> > than the  presence of food.
>
> Yes, of course. And that "something more" is known as a digestive
system. The mechanics (read, "biochemistry") of such a system have been
largely worked out in considerable detail and can be traced back to
Cambrian trilobites whose ocean bottom-dwelling presence on this planet
well predates even our earliest ancestors or their religious/philosophical systems. (I wonder who the "patron saint" of trilobite digestive systems is.)

The mere presence of a digestive system does not guarantee that food will
be assimilated.  Do dead dogs, for instance, assimilate any food that may
be placed before them?  There is something more that makes the entire
process possible.  The mere complexity of a digestive system in an even
more complex biological unity of itself obviously does not guarantee
digestion and the transfers of energy associated with it.  As for the
patron saint of trilobite digestive systems, perhaps you might do a Google
search and let us know the results of your inquiry, eh?  Or, perhaps, with
Richard's permission, we can proclaim you the patron saint.

> > How are your "objective positio" generated assertions here really
> > different from your "subjective" ones above?
>
> They're not. Must they be?

They need not be.

> > I think you misidentified your terms here. An artifact is something
> > made from wood, stone, metals, etc.
>
> Stanley, A language is a collection of symbols designed to be used to convey meaning. If the symbols used convey the meaning intended then the job is done.

At the risk of being accused of quibbling (which I am not) I believe what
you describe here is the written form of a language.  Sounds in themselves
are not symbols, and so they are not by your definition a language.

> I have no doubt that the meaning I intended be conveyed was in fact
conveyed to you through my assemblage of the symbols, "artifact". In its
broad sense, the term artifact can refer to any creation of humankind. The very fact that you have chosen to quibble with my term indicates to me that you have arrived at an understanding of my meaning. I have no desire to get into a pedantic pissing war with you over word meanings when the intent is clearly understood.

I don't know, Robert.  I tend to think that words are important, and that
it is a help to be as precise as possible.  Even you appear to think so if
your initial remarks about automobiles and computers are an indicator of
the precise use of terms.

> > are more properly "mentifacts".
>
> Interesting. I can find this term nowhere in my collection of dictionaries. Are you into creating your own language in order to support otherwise unsupportable arguments?

This isn't really interesting to you, is it?  My source for "mentifact" is
Bernard Lonergan quoting either Malinowski or Jaspers in a seminar he gave
to educators in the late 1950s.  The talks are found in one of the volumes
of his collected works, _Topics in Education_.

> > 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…
>
> Stanley, nobody has said that "only Buddhist practices and philosophies"
serve the purpose you propose. The word "only" which you inserted in your
text above, is yours, not mine. Are you given to putting words in other peoples’ mouths that were not there or intended in order to support your otherwise unsupportable argument?

Robert, if I misunderstood your meaning, then I stand corrected.

> >> There is no reason to make life any more complicated than it already is.
>
> > Expound upon this.
>
> Is this a request or an imperative?

Actually, it was a request.  I'm glad you understood that point.
>
> Believing it to be a request, I offer the following observations on my daily practice of life.
>
> I find it helpful to do the following (largely Buddhist) practices. (My apologies to the scribes of the Dhammapada.)
>
> 1. Work to do what I believe is helpful to humanity in general; i.e., <i> pro humanitate’. </i>
>
> 2. Work to avoid doing what I would consider unhelpful to humanity in general, i.e., <i> non pro humanitate. </i>
>
> 3. Work to discipline my mind and thought processes and work to be mindful of my actions and their consequences at all times.
>
> I choose the term "work to" as opposed to "do" as I find my life very
much "a work in progress". What I in fact do do, is very much a response
to my current circumstance and condition, but I practice. I find that the integration or involvement of saints, spirits and spooks, devils and demons, arbitrary and 'infallible' religious authorities - who live in privilaged circumstances and who never have experienced my condition, ritual, and the like, only serves to unnecessarily complicate my life. This is what I mean by keeping life simple. At the same time, I recognize that for others, their circumstances and conditions may call for other responses and personal philosophies.

Thanks, Robert.  I also practice so as to avoid evil and encourage the
well-being of everybody I meet.

Stan Ziobro