[Buddha-l] Query about Francisco Varela

[Vera, Pedro L.]

Joy wrote:


>Erik, ganging up with Heidegger, apparently offended you with the world 'only' ("Heidegger accuses science to >focus only on things that exist and forget about existence itself"). I am curious to know whether it is true >that you focus only on things that exist? You also used the words "use" and "happy" (btw what is their >connexion to science?) and I wonder whether this cocktail of "things that exist", "happiness" and "use" would >perhaps be the most efficient recipe for a good and happy life?

Dear Joy:

It was a very minor and temporary offense, although I did take a pretty broad swipe at philosophy.

As to your questions:

(1) Is it true that I focus only on things that exist?

I presume that the question refers to my work as a scientist, and the answer is yes. I like to think that my work has reliability and validity. Some scientists (I think it's a rare event) publish things that do not exist (i.e. fabricated data) and typically end up having to retract their articles, losing their positions and accruing irreparable damage to their careers (a recent example deals with cloning experiments out of South Korea), once the scientific misconduct has been discovered.

Now, in more general terms, I (like Erik) also enjoy quite a number of "useless" things. In addition, to Budha-L, I also like music, literature, philosophy, and (much to Joanna's chagrin) even video games. So, a more  general answer to your question is that obviously I also focus on things that do not exist (however, not in the context of science).

(2) "You also used the words "use" and "happy" (btw what is their >connexion to science?"

I don't remember how I associated them, but the answer is they do not have to be connected. Not everything is connected to science.

(3) "I wonder whether this cocktail of "things that exist", "happiness" and "use" would >perhaps be the most efficient recipe for a good and happy life?"

Seeing how I have no clue what the secret for a good and happy life is, the answer is, yeah, maybe ;)

I'm currently rereading Seneca and Epictetus and they have a lot to say about the qualities necessary for a good and happy life. Just to add the necessary Buddhist content to this message, I see a fair amount of likeness between what the Stoics propose in terms of controlling the mind, and Buddhism.

I think perhaps I overreacted to Erik's (or Heidegger's as Erik's later post indicates) opinion of science, however, the initial emotional content has dissipated and there was no harm done (or intented). This thread is veering far off-course the original post (Francisco Varela). 

I would be happy to answer off-list any other questions concerning my research, but I do not think it would be appropriate to bore the list readers with the details of my work. My work can also be accessed through the National Library of Medicine's website, using a Pubmed search.

Regards,

Pedro

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 4032 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20070114/706efa27/attachment.bin