|
|
Re: FW: Religous Variation
J Cook (0002019573@MCIMAIL.COM)
Tue, 30 Jul 1996 07:36:00 EST
-- [ From: Jesse S. Cook III * EMC.Ver #2.3 ] --
-------- REPLY, Original message follows --------
Date: Tuesday, 30-Jul-96 07:24 AM
From: Peter D. Junger \ Internet: (junger@pdj2-ra.f-remote.cwru.edu)
From: Peter D. Junger \ Internet: (junger@pdj2-ra.f-remote.cwru.edu)
To: Multiple recipients of list ANTHRO-L \ Internet:
(anthro-l@ubvm.cc.buffalo.edu)
Subject: Re: FW: Religous Variation
"Edward W. Farrell" writes:
I am not aware of the existence of a "theory of mind" with the same definition
of, say, the theory of relativity. The unique problem with a theory of mind is
regression, i.e., the subject of the theory is also its object. As a tool of
science, then, such a theory would always be subject to buffeting by the very
sorts of beliefs it is engaged in explaining. As difficult as this is, dealing
with mind openly and straightforwardly is all the more essential in my view.
Is not the Buddha Dharma, at least in many of its traditional manifestations,
such a ``theory of mind'' (and a lot more besides)? And is not much of the
Buddhist practice directed towards freeing ourselves from that ``buffeting'' by
extinguishing our attachment to those beliefs, and all other beliefs as well?
Farrell's project strikes my ears as being frightfully parochial.
Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH
Internet: junger@pdj2-ra.f-remote.cwru.edu junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu
-------- REPLY, End of original message --------
In what sense is it "frightfully parochial"?
Your reference to Buddhism strikes me as being "frightfully" irrelevant.
Jesse S. Cook III 201-9573@mcimail.com
|