From: tp0x+@cs.cmu.edu (Thomas Price)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: Buddhism & Science
Date: 1 Jan 93 16:26:33 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.C06oCA.GJu.1
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

This thread pushes one of my buttons.

I'm interested in these "theory-of-everything" books, have paged through
_Reality and Empathy_ (and was shocked to see it referenced in the latest
edition of Huston Smith's _The World Religions_), and am reading David
Bohm's _Wholeness and the Implicate Order_. There are other works which
fit into this category that I've seen but can't remember the titles. Also
I've read magazine articles in this genre.

There *is* a connection between modern physics and Buddhism: both teach that
"there are no objects, only events".

That said, I tend to groan inwardly whenever an author starts wanking away
about quantum physics. It would be fine -- nay, wonderful -- if any one
of these guys would say something so restrained as "the cosmological and
ontological models of physical science have always been involved in a
reciprocal relationship with the cosmological and ontological models of
religion, literature, and the humanities", and THEN give examples, (for
instance, Newtonian physics, Archbishop Paley's divine watchmaker metaphor,
the Deist's Almighty Architect concept, etc.) and THEN proceed by analogy,
as in, "the model of reality given us by modern physical science is 
surprisingly in accord with Buddhist thinking. Let's consider how 
scientific models are related to models in the humanities and start exploring
some Buddhist thoughts and see how we might make use of them, now that we're
thinking (thanks to science) in terms congenial to such thoughts!"

Instead -- and I've only gotten through Bohm's first two chapters -- we get
a very suggestive, and interesting, but bewildering snarl of handwaving
and bald assertions. David Bohm clearly is a superintelligent man who has
done no primary source reading in philosophy, comparative religions, or
cognitive history. He gives the impression that he's read some
summaries of those fields and a lot of lightweight thought-synthetic theories 
by people like him, and now he's written one of his own.

I am eager to see what happens when he actually gets to talking about
quantum physics. I fear that, as usual, he will start asserting connections
among quantum physics, religion, and culture, without ever making clear
what the causal relationships are or how such jumping from one context
to another is at all justifiable.

I no longer believe in conspiracies, nor in quick fixes. To understand 
ideas one must do the scut-work of extensive reading in philosophy and
comparative religions. TANSTAFFL. These one-book wonders are entertaining
but not useful. Disclaimer: I am desperately eager to find one which 
lives up to its billing. If you can recommend one, please email me. So far
the most impressive theory-of-everything book for me is Camille Paglia's 
_Sexual Personae_ -- in which it is clear that she has read her primary 
sources, all the references are given, and the critical apparatus is made 
clear.


      Tom Price   |    tp0x@cs.cmu.edu   |   Free will? What free will? 
 *****************************************************************************
  plutoniumsurveillanceterroristCIAassassinationIranContrawirefraudcryptology