[Buddha-l] Query about Francisco Varela

[Vera, Pedro L.]

Erik wrote:
 
>Heidegger accuses science to
focus only on things that exist and forget aboute existence itself.
Like Barnaby suggests, this is all water that has passed under the
bridge long ago, but more recently philosophers like Bruno Latour have
stressed that science is not delivering truth. It is nothing more than
an industry that delivers explanational models and technology, but the
model never coincides with the explaned.

Dear Erik:

As a scientist, I am very happy to focus only on things that exist. What would be the use of focusing on things that do not exist? As a matter of fact, it seems that is the provenance of philosophy, and frankly, not much has come out of those efforts, although there has been a lot of argument for roughly 2000 years.

Yes, science does provide explanatory models and technology, although your "nothing more" statement appears to denigrate that. Once again, I am happy that science provides just that. I disagree with your statement that the models "never coincides with the explained". In fact the models coincide with the explained operationally, and when they do not, they get readjusted. In fact, it is precisely because science works as well as it does, that we have relatively accurate explanations for phenomena (yes, I include this term to juxtapose with phenomenology which does not really explain much about real phenomena, e.g. how the coat of the HIV virus mutates to avoid detection). I find this to be a trememendous improvement over arguing over things that cannot be demonstrated to exist (either "lifeworlds" or how many angels can dance on a pinhead).


>The question I find interesting is: are meditation and Buddhism part of
the lifeworld, or are they toolkits we can use to get what we want? The
'Mind and life' initiative thinks Buddhism is a toolkit like science,
and so both are comparable and can help each other, I think this is a
mistake.

I have no idea what "lifeworld" means or more precisely whether it means anything that can be concretely and objectively verified. Science tries to understand the workings of the brain (I do not believe in "mind") and to the extent that certain buddhist techniques can affect or reshape the workings of the brain, then they are "toolkits" and can help each other.
 
I do no have much to say about Varela's work since I have not read it, unfortunately. Also, I have not kept up with this particular thread closely. I simply wanted to take some time to argue for the rather poor and insignificant contributions from "mere" scientists to our understanding of this world. Yes, Erik, this world, the one we live in, get sick in, and eventually die in,  not the one invented by Heidegger or any other philosopher.
 
As for the search of meaning, I'm afraid I gave that up long ago.
 
Regards,
 
Pedro
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 5508 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20070112/c6fe3f5e/attachment.bin