From: farris@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Lorenzo Farris)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: Buddhism & Science
Date: 3 Jan 93 20:27:28 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <memo.837515@cix.compulink.co.uk>, shaman@cix.compulink.co.uk (Leo Smith) writes:
:           1/. Does a small child understand language?
:           2/. How does a small child gain an understanding of language?
:
:Most mystical traditions take you back to the pre-verbal pre-language 
:methods of relating to the world. That is why they are often littered 
:with child metaphors [except as ye be as little 
:children...innocence...etc]

This is not the sort of idea I was referring to, but this also holds.

:I think the point here is that the concepts that a child acquires 
:dictate the nature of the worldview from then on: More than that, 
:they dictate the transformations possible in that worldview. If you 
:live in a world of a certain set of concepts, and these form the 
:axiomatic limits of what you can concieve or apprehend, then there is 
:no way, without re-examining those axioms, that yiu can substantially 
:change youir worldview.
:
:This is, I believe, the meaning behind all esoteric traditions. They 
:are ways to re-assess the fundamental assumptions in your worldview. 
:The approach differs - Christianity is more emotional than Buddhism, 
:but they all lead to that 'union with God' experience which I take to 
:be the experience of undifferentiated existence - pre-lingusitic, 
:pre-conceptual experience.

I agree with much of this. It is, of course, much more complicated
than this. Within esoteric Buddhism, that restructuring of the
axiomatic ground of perception is part of the practice. There are also
various practices dealing with how being in the world, and being on
the planet with other people with varying flavors of perception
affects one.

:What is the relevance of this to Science and Logic. Immense. Logic is 
:the glue that binds the conceptual objects of our worldview together. 
:Science is the process of adding to this logical structure. 
:
:To revisit the pre-structural experience is to visit the territory 
:where ideas and concepts first come into being, where our innate 
:axioms such as 'space' and 'time' come into being.  It has been said 
:that the ultimate point about reality is that it is what comes up and 
:hits you in the face when you fall over. But for a pre-lingual child 
:that CANNOT be true. To that child, some infinitely powerful cosmic 
:event has caused it to experience something woefully unpleasant and 
:unexpected. This is the territory where gods and demons are born, to 
:be later explained away by Newton as 'gravity' :-)
:
:Returning to the original thread. Buddshism is the LOGICAL approach 
:to estoteric matters IMHO. Buddhism talks about methodologies to 
:approach mystical states. 

In agreement with previous comments, I think that until we define
logic within this context, such descriptions will be seen as vague by
some. I would agree, however, that Buddhism is an eminently practical
approach, based on the empirical, experiential studies of countless
yogis.

:
:In my opinion (and doubtless many will argue that this is not what 
:Buddhism is about or should be about) buddhism amongst other 
:traditions shows us the way our picture of the world can be 
:disentangled - so that you can retrace the steps in your personal 
:learning back to the time when you first became aware of yourself, 
:and the rest of the world - and beyond. To re-visit that area is to 
:understand how all of our knowledge is built on the basic tenets of a 
:small very young chimpanzee-like creature in its attempts to come to 
:terms with a world of language and building blocks, of emotions and 
:sensations. Those tenets may not be so appropriate at the age of 40+ 
:as they were at the age of two, particularly if the chimpanzee is now 
:a theoretical physicist.

As an aside, this is true not only of Buddhist yoga, but Taoist and
other traditions as well. When one is getting to this level of study,
the various yogas of the mind all employ very similar techniques.

:
:I have been criticised in the past for criticising science. Randall 
:in particular is a firm adherent to the tenet that 'if it works it 
:must be true'.  Quite. My cat doubtless believes that a piteous yowl 
:to the greater gods will always produce cat food. It generally always 
:has, but does that make it true? He doesn't need to understand the 
:complexity of how that food gets to him. He is only concerned with 
:survival - not truth. Science is no better. Science that doesn't lead 
:to predictions is non-science, and science that leads to predictions 
:of unpredictability (chaos theory?) is borderline!  So Science IS 
:utilitarian -  a set of rules-of-thumb justified by repeatibility and 
:repeatability. But those rules of thumb are built on the basic 
:concepts that are inherent in the way we view the world. 

Something else that I think is often neglected when discussing the
power of science to describe the world: people often forget, including
physicists, that much of what is studied is that which we can actually
calculate, i.e., physics which can be describe by linear differential
equations. For you laymen, that simply means solvable equations. My
own perception of what physics is is of coursed biased by this
emphasis on linear equations. But most equations one could come up
with are nonlinear, and we are only know beginning to explore that
vast unknown which is non-linear dynamics, into which chaos theory
falls. 

The point is, there is a limited amount of stuff physicists can
actually calculate, and that determines what we are willing to even
look at.

Relative to the ideas of rules of thumb. In orthodox physics today,
something which even many physicists seem to forget, the dominant
interpretation of the descriptive value of physics is the Copenhagen
Interpretation, which in essence says, We have no idea what is really
going on, but with this model we can predict what we will measure when
we set things up this way.

Esoteric 
:traditions go beyond that - to give the power to re-structure the way 
:we see the world. Very few people need that power: It has only two or 
:three valid uses IMHO ...

Valid? You leave out what the esoteric traditions themselves say is
their purpose. That is to become enlightened. 

:The third valid use however, is to develop new fundamental basic 
:concepts - the paradigm shifts of Kuhn.  I cannot help but see the 
:whole of the current complexity of experimental and theoretical 
:physics as the ultimate and logical conclusion of some very basic 
:tenets - that 'we' inhabit a 'universe' which is composed of 'matter' 
:that 'exists' in 'time' and has 'space' as a component of it, and 
:which 'universe' is in fact a complex solution to a series of simpler 
:equations called 'physical laws'. These are as succinctly as I can 
:express them, the assumptions underlying physics.

Quibble: there is only energy, and space-time. And the equations are
by no means simple. Just the approximations are.

:If the logical extrapolation of those tenets is their negation - i.e. 
:in the case of my understanding of Bohm, that the universe may have 
:to be a solution to a far more complex equation than the universe 
:appears to be itself! - then waht are the implications. Suppose that 
:subatomic activity is assumed to be random and that 'God does play 
:dice' - that also knocks the underlying reductionism of science on 
:its head. 

Not really. It only knocks determinism on its head. Reductionism goes
on apace, carrying stochastic processes right along with it. What will
knock reductionism on its head are the fundamental limitations in how
small we can measure. I think we will eventually hit that limit,
technologically. 

:
:This is where esotericism and metaphysics OUGHT to be coming to the 
:rescue. By moving away from assumptions of absolute knowledge towards 
:realisation that knowledge is always relative - to our language, to 
:our concepts, ultimately to our personal experience, we are prevented 
:from our attempts to elevate ourselves to godlike status.  Instead of 
:the search for Ultimate Truth, our goals can become more realistic: 
:New models of simplicity elegance and uitility - within the context 
:for which they are intended. 

Within the esoteric traditions that I know of, there is indeed
believed to be absolute knowledge. You just can't get to it through
rational means. 

:
:So when I talk about a 'beautiful woman' it will be understood in the 
:context of my own personal sexuality and preference, and not an 
:attempt to lay down universal standards of morality and 
:picturesqueness. Investigations of quarks and leptons may just help 
:us develop new power sources, better computers or lasers, but should 
:not affect personal morality.
:
:It is this terrible extrapolation, of 'scientific theory' to 
:'universal fact' that has really caused some fundamental human 
:problems in the twentyieth century. Because the assumption of 
:physical science have been spectacularly successful, there has been 
:the tendency to assume also that 'there is no god but Universal field 
:theory, and Newton is his prophet'. Christianity has been unable to 
:do more than meekly nod in assent, but Buddhism has in fact got the 
:answer. "That is a suitable *assumption* for sending rockets to the 
:moon, but is it the right attitude to bring towards other aspects of 
:human life?"
:
:And it may not even be a suitable assumption for subatomic physics 
:either. 

A couple of points I would like to bring up here.

First of all the extrapolation of science by the lay mind has indeed
been fraught with problems. Social Darwinism, a deterministic
universe, etc., have no basis in science itself, however. One should
rather lay the blame at wanton interpretations, just as, before the
Renaissance, so much abuse, so much superstitious nonsense was
prevalent in Catholic Europe. The problem was not in Jesus' teachings,
but the way people interpreted it. And if Buddhism was to become a
dominant force, you would see similar misinterpretations of that as
well. 

Just witness the wars between Buddhist sects in feudal Japan, and the
way Buddhists are helping the continuance of strife in Sri Lanka.

When people use any set of ideas to further their personal
domesticated-primate agenda, that is when the problems start.

So I guess what I am saying here is that, what you attribute to an
unfortunate extrapolation of Newtonian physics, is IMO much more
general, and physics just happens to be the current excuse.

To get back to the topic on the subject line, Buddhism and science are
fundamentally related. Science is about open-minded investigation of
physical phenomena, using the scientific method. 

Buddhism, in its inception, made no statements about anything people
could not experience directly. The Buddha as much said: Just try it,
you'll see that I am right. In that, it is an experimental method.

Esoteric yoga is a technology of awareness. Some of its outgrowths are
subject to studies by physical science, but most are not. 

Scientific materialism is the prejudice that results from accepting
that what is explorable by physical science is all-there-is. It
originally liberated people from the troubles inherent with the
prevalent interpretation of Christianity, but is still just another
limited view of the universe.

			Yours in extensive ranting,
				Lorenzo
-- 
Happiness is just a                     ******************************
remembrance away.                       *  Lorenzo Farris            *
                                        *  farris@ruhets.rutgers.edu *
                                        ******************************
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta