[Buddha-l] Views of Information & Knowledge (Culture & Religion)

[Barnaby Thieme]

Howdy Erik

>This view is very modern, it's based on the logocentric view that the world 
>is based on eternal selfevident principles.

I'm not sure what you mean here. I do not believe in eternal, self-evident 
principles, and as far as I'm concerned, none of the views I've put forth 
require that I do. Could you say a little more?

regards,
Barnaby


_________________________________

A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing
- Emo Philips




>From: Erik Hoogcarspel <jehms at xs4all.nl>
>Reply-To: Buddhist discussion forum <buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com>
>To: Buddhist discussion forum <buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com>
>Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] Views of Information & Knowledge (Culture & 
>Religion)
>Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 15:35:11 +0200
>
>Barnaby Thieme schreef:
>
>>Dear Malcolm,
>>
>>As a fellow student of self-organziation and complexity theory, I share 
>>your interest in an information-theoretic reading of Buddhism. The 
>>"it-from-bit" interpretation of QM by John Wheeler appears in my eyes to 
>>be equivalent to the statement of the Sutra on the Ten Grounds that the 
>>three worlds are brought forth by mind, or the Prasangika-Madhyamaka tenet 
>>that all phenomena are dependent upon being posited by a 
>>conventionally-valid consciousness. When I read close, technical 
>>explanations of how these doctrines have been interpreted, such as Kensur 
>>Yeshe Thupden's magisterial "Path to the Middle" or Mipham Rinpoche's 
>>commentary on the Madhyamakavatara, I cannot doubt that the Copenhagen 
>>Interpretation of QM is recapitulating insights about the nature of 
>>experience that were deduced by Buddhist yogis centuries or millenia ago. 
>>At the ultimate level of analysis, the experience of a phenomenon is 
>>inseperable from experience itself, and attempts to abstract the subject 
>>out lead to incoherence.
>>
>>I have seen some attempts to combine contemporary systems sciences and 
>>Buddhism, but most are not very good, with the notable exception of the 
>>work of Francisco Varela. His essay "Ethical Know-How" is one of the 
>>greatest exemplars of this kind of work.
>>
>>All-too-often what I find is introductory works that attempt to serve as 
>>primers to both Buddhism and systems theory or physics, often doing a 
>>mediocre job at both, and paving no new ground. I'd be interested if you 
>>had any suggestions or references to material that deals with this issue 
>>in an intelligent way.
>>
>>best,
>>Barnaby Thieme
>
>This view is very modern, it's based on the logocentric view that the world 
>is based on eternal selfevident principles. I think this is wrong, because 
>I never could find such a thing. What something is, is determined by its 
>function and the way people deal with it. QM is something typical for our 
>time, it could not be comprehended by yogis in ancient India. Pythagoras 
>theorem today (valid for an infinite number of dimensions) is incomparable 
>to what Pythagoras had in mind.
>
>Erik
>
>
>www.xs4all.nl/~jehms
>weblog http://www.volkskrantblog.nl/pub/blogs/blog.php?uid=2950
>
>_______________________________________________
>buddha-l mailing list
>buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com
>http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l