Christian Mindfulness & Emptiness

[Sarpedon]

So the Catholic Church is run by non-human aliens? Surely every Pope, every Catholic Theologian and every Catholic is human.

Those people are human, but the Church has both human and divine aspects. The more important thing is that since we are made in the image of God, we can participate in the perfect reason of God in proportion to our own perfection, which varies from individual to individual. Human perfection is indeed possible (i.e. sainthood), and we use reason perfectly once we achieve that overall perfection.

Which God? Krishna? You cannot just assume the existence of the Catholic Christian God. God is just another way for you to introduce universals into the argument. I do not accept universals or any other form of reification such as God.

This has nothing to do with the Christian God in particular, just the nature of the perfect being as demonstrated through philosophy. See newadvent.org/cathen/06612a.htm

I know you reject universals. What I am doing here is pointing out the different consequences that happen when we either accept or reject universals, so of course I am going to mention universals at times. The consequences are what is important.

How do you know? You can only test the equation by having humans type numbers into it and seeing what comes out. You have no error-free method to determine if the equation is error-free. You cannot eliminate all uncertainty, the best you can do is to reduce the uncertainty to acceptable levels.

We test the equation by comparing it to our observation of the physical order. That’s how we verify equations. The key point is that it is in reference to something else as a baseline. In Catholicism, reason and observation act as the baseline on which all knowledge is measured against. In Buddhism, there is potential uncertainty to an unkown degree in both the equation and the baseline. Therefore, you cannot correct either. There is no way to eliminate an unknown degree of correctness in one thing by comparing it to something else with an unknown degree of correctness in that thing. That’s why Catholicism upholds reason as the correct thing that allows us to evaluate everything else in reference to that correctness. If there is nothing upheld as correct, then there is no way to compare and contrast questionable things against a true standard. If everything is equestionable to an unknown degree, then we can’t advance anywhere.

No, I have explained this many times. We test the equation, accepting that our tests may be in error, and collate the results of many tests. This appears to be similar to what you say Catholics do, we just approach it differently. Catholics seem to start from certainty and move towards partial certainty. Buddhists start from uncertainty and move towards reduced uncertainty. I am not sure that there is a huge difference between your ‘partial certainty’ and my ‘reduced uncertainty’.

The difference is what these models are being compared to. Catholics place faith in reason as the correct baseline. All other models are compared to this baseline and judged accurate or not in accordance with the baseline. By allowing one correct thing, Catholic epistemology establishes a reference point to judge correctness. In contrast, Buddhism has no known correct baseline. While you can compare and contrast, you are comparing things which both have an unknown degree of correctness. Your mental model has an unknown degree of correctness, but so does your reason. Therefore, comparing the two does not lead anywhere because you cannot locate where the error lies.

How can you tell if the expression is true without crunching numbers? If the number crunching introduces uncertainty then you have no way to tell.

By comparing it to the baseline of the physical order (i.e. laboratory verification). The equation needs a baseline, as does everything. Buddhism says that there is an unknown degree of error within both the equation and the reference point, which makes it impossible to determine whether there is an error and where that error lies.

 

[Sarpedon]

.Disagree. If a person is red-green colour blind then that person’s sight is not correct. However that person’s sight is far from being of no value. Human reason is all too often incorrect but it is not of no value.

Whenever I mention reason I am talking about reason itself, not the mental activity of a specific person. Of course, you reject this, but that only hurts the reliability of reason and helps my case.

The Lotus Sutra uses the analogy of a burning building; we do not have time for absolute, and unattainable, certainty. We have to act now. I can see enough to know that I am in a burning building and that I need to get out. I have a sign pointing to the Fire Exit.

So you know, for a fact, that you are in a burning building?

What alternative source of knowledge are you proposing that I use? I need something practical here. What source of knowledge do I have that is not mediated through my senses or my reasoning?

Nothing. That is why Catholics place faith in reason as a correct method that allows us to evaluate our mental models. You can’t reduce uncertainty by comparing two systems that both have an unknown degree of uncertainty. By allowing a known correct thing or method, we can then evaluate other systems in reference to that known correctness. This is why Catholics place faith in reason as a correct method. If we do not do that, then we do not know to that extent reason is correct. We also do not know the extent of correctness in anything else. The consequence of this is that we can’t eliminate that degree of error because we lack any known correct standard. We can compare things all we want, but comparing two textbooks which both have an unknown degree of error will not allow you to move toward true knowledge.

No matter what you choose as your known baseline of correctness, that simply becomes the true standard in your system, which then becomes your underlying foundational truth. Even if that correct standard is that “everything else changes” or “all living beings will attain Nirvana” you still have an underlying ruling principal which functions like a universal. In addition, not upholding at least the temporary correctness of reason as a correct standard makes everything we are doing here pointless. Even to say “reason is temporarily correct” means that you are referencing a ruling underlying principal that is akin to a universal. This isn’t an argument for Catholicism per se, but rather it is an argument for the necessity of universals.

 

[rossum]

If everything is transient, then you can’t make any absolute statements,

Correct, I do not make any absolute statements. Since language is itself not absolute - it is transient and changing like everything else - then I cannot make any absolute statements in any language.

and if you can’t make any absolute statements, then you have no ability to tell me that everything is transient.

I have that ability: “Everything is transient”. There, I just said what you said I have no ability to say.

Read my sig. We cannot use language to make absolute statements, yet if we are going to discuss the absolute (which of course I reject) then we have to discuss it using language.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Catholicism says that reason and observation (in nature, not application) are reliable. Therefore, we can correct our mental model in relation to reason and observation, which is analogous to correcting the computer in relation to the sun.

Buddhism says the same, our senses are reasonably reliable for everyday life, and can be used for everyday purposes. They are not perfect and must be used with care when stepping outside the bounds of the ordinary.

However, Buddhism does not say the same. Buddhism says that the computer may or may not be correct.

Buddhism says that the computer is correct to within a known range of error. Our senses are reliable enough for every day purposes.

Obviously, we need to fix that. However, Buddhism also says that our perception of the sun may or may not be correct. On what basis then, do you think that comparing one system with an unknown degree of correctness to another system with an unknown degree of correctness is going to lead anywhere?

Ask any scientist. Every scientific measurement comes with a degree of error attached. Every calculation has to include the errors on the (name removed by moderator)uts and the consequent error on the outputs. As with Buddhists, scientists are aware that there are errors on the data and make allowances for the errors in their calculations.

Not at all. The simple difference is that Catholicism upholds a true baseline (like the sun) to measure models off of (like the computer). In contrast, Buddhism says that both systems may or may not be true, which makes it impossible to correct our understanding of either one. By placing espistemological faith in one thing, Catholicism makes everything else possible. By placing epistemological faith in nothing, Buddhism makes everything else impossible.

You are taking a very black and white view of things; you seem to think that if there is an error in something then it is completely useless. It is not, it is useful within limits. Remember that I do not go in for absolutes - I am content to work with imperfect data because imperfect data is all that I have.

What source of perfect data do you have? Did you see that source? Then your data is imperfect because your sight is imperfect. Did you reason it? Then your data is imperfect because your reason is imperfect. How can you know something perfectly apart from your senses and your reason? What practical use is perfect data if you do not have an error-free way to get at it?

rossum

 

[rossum]

Human perfection is indeed possible (i.e. sainthood), and we use reason perfectly once we achieve that overall perfection.

Human perfection is indeed possible (i.e. Buddhahood) and until we attain that state we use reason imperfectly. Since the vast majority of us are short of that state we have perforce to work with the imperfect tools that we have available.

I know you reject universals. What I am doing here is pointing out the different consequences that happen when we either accept or reject universals, so of course I am going to mention universals at times. The consequences are what is important.

How can you access your universals? Your senses are imperfect so anything you sense is error-prone. Your reason is (currently) imperfect so anything you reason contains the possibility of error. How can you determine the existence of your universals apart from your senses and your reason?

In Buddhism, there is potential uncertainty to an unkown degree in both the equation and the baseline. Therefore, you cannot correct either.

In science there potential uncertainty to an unknown degree in both the equation and the baseline. Science works to limit the degree of uncertainty and to reduce it within known bounds. Buddhism does the same. Science has had great success with its methods, uncertainty included. Buddhism has also found ways to work in the presence of uncertainty.

That’s why Catholicism upholds reason as the correct thing that allows us to evaluate everything else in reference to that correctness.

You have already agreed that human reason is imperfect and contains the possibility of error. You are just like me in attempting to use an imperfect method like human reason. I admit the imperfections of human reasoning, while you appear to be trying to reify them away by appealing to your universal of reason.

Catholics place faith in reason as the correct baseline.

Catholics are human and hence their faith may be incorrect. You have not eliminated error, merely ignored it.

By allowing one correct thing, Catholic epistemology establishes a reference point to judge correctness.

You have not allowed “one correct thing”, you have merely ignored the errors in that thing. We have already agreed the human reason is not error free.

In contrast, Buddhism has no known correct baseline.

Buddhism does not sweep known errors under the carpet and ignore them.

Whenever I mention reason I am talking about reason itself, not the mental activity of a specific person. Of course, you reject this, but that only hurts the reliability of reason and helps my case.

What case? Can you show me an example of “reason itself” that is not the mental activity of a specific person? If you cannot show the existence of your reified “reason itself” then you have no case.

So you know, for a fact, that you are in a burning building?

I am going to work on that basis until I know otherwise. You can stay and take the risk if you want to. I have mentioned before that Buddhism is a philosophy with a purpose; to get out of the burning building.

Nothing.

Excellent. We are agreed that there are two sources of knowledge - our senses and our reasoning. We are also agreed that the human senses are not perfectly reliable and that human reasoning is not perfectly reliable (at least for those of us who are short of perfection).

That is why Catholics place faith in reason as a correct method that allows us to evaluate our mental models.

This is where we disagree. I do not think it is satisfactory to just ignore the imperfections we have just agreed. We need to allow for those agreed imperfections in all our subsequent work.

You can’t reduce uncertainty by comparing two systems that both have an unknown degree of uncertainty.

Yes you can - ask any scientist. There are known methods to take (name removed by moderator)uts with errors and produce outputs with the appropriate errors. I would agree with you if the error bars were set at infinite distance, but they are not. Our senses are not perfectly reliable, but neither are they perfectly unreliable. They have finite error bars.

By allowing a known correct thing or method, we can then evaluate other systems in reference to that known correctness.

It is not known to be correct. It is known to be incorrect, and you are just ignoring the incorrectness. I do not think that is a good way to proceed.

In addition, not upholding at least the temporary correctness of reason as a correct standard makes everything we are doing here pointless.

I have no problem with temporary correctness as I have said from the start. I use what works here and now.

rossum

 

[Bookcat]

A VERY important document that needs to be read and understood on this topic --it is from the Holy See --the Cong. for the Doctrine of the Faith --signed by Card. Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI of course)

ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfmed.htm

 

[Sarpedon]

Correct, I do not make any absolute statements. Since language is itself not absolute - it is transient and changing like everything else - then I cannot make any absolute statements in any language.

But you just made a new one! You said that you cannot make absolute statements using language. By stating a property (or lack thereof) of language, you made an absolute statement about language. I can keep going based on how you reply to this.

It’s the same no matter what example we use. If you say that you cannot make absolute statements about anything, you made an absolute statement about what you can do. If you say that everything is transient, then you made a permanent statement about transience.

If you say that these statements are only pragmatically true, then you are just making another absolute statement- that pragmatic justifications are valid and sufficient. No matter what you say it is based on some absolute that you are drawing from.

 

[Sarpedon]

Buddhism says the same, our senses are reasonably reliable for everyday life, and can be used for everyday purposes. They are not perfect and must be used with care when stepping outside the bounds of the ordinary.

The problem is the Buddhist justification for this. Buddhism lacks any defined correct thing that is defined as simply correct or reliable. Without this defined thing, we have no way to compare and contrast error with truth. If we have two textbooks that both have an unknown degree of error, then we cannot procede in knowledge. If we know that one textbook is correct, we can correct the other one in light of the correct textbook. If our material observation is correct, then we can correct both textbooks in light of that correct observation. Catholicism defines reason and observation as the correct things that all other things are corrected against. Does Buddhism provide a similar correct standard?

You are taking a very black and white view of things; you seem to think that if there is an error in something then it is completely useless. It is not, it is useful within limits. Remember that I do not go in for absolutes - I am content to work with imperfect data because imperfect data is all that I have.

What source of perfect data do you have?

For any intellectual system to work there must be some correct standard that is used to correct other things. Scientism upholds the scientific world as the standard, while Catholicism takes a more holisitic view of reason and observation as the correct standard. The point is that there must be at least one correct thing or method that we correct everything else off of. Two textbooks that both have an unknown degree of error cannot be used to correct each other. We need something that is fully correct to compare and contrast the error-filled things to. Catholicism upholds reason and observation for this. Does Buddhism uphold some defined correct thing or method as the standard by which other things are compared and corrected?

 

[Sarpedon]

In science there potential uncertainty to an unknown degree in both the equation and the baseline. Science works to limit the degree of uncertainty and to reduce it within known bounds. Buddhism does the same. Science has had great success with its methods, uncertainty included. Buddhism has also found ways to work in the presence of uncertainty.

Science upholds the physical order as the correct thing that everything else is compared too. Science textbooks are corrected in accordance with the data. Scientific theories rise and fall based on their congruence with the physical order. Science allows that the physical order is true and then corrects our understanding and our theories in accordance with that true standard of the physical order. This is the perfect example of what I am saying. Two textbooks that both have an unknown degree of error cannot correct each other. We need a true standard, and science works by upholding the physical order as the correct standard that theories are measured against. In science, the physical order acts as the one thing that is allowed as correct. In Catholicism, reason and observation are allowed as the one correct thing (they are really just different applications of the same ability). By allowing one correct thing, both science and Catholicism are able to build knowledge in reference to that standard.

Buddhism does not do likewise. Buddhism says that our understanding of the physical order may be incorrect, but it also says that the physical order itself may be incorrect. Therefore, we have two textbooks that both have an unknown degree of error. For Buddhism to construct knowledge, it must uphold at least one thing as the true standard that everything else is corrected off of. Science uses the physical order, Catholicism uses reason and observation, and Buddhism must use something. Whatever you choose, that becomes your ruling principal and your universal.

You have already agreed that human reason is imperfect and contains the possibility of error. You are just like me in attempting to use an imperfect method like human reason. I admit the imperfections of human reasoning, while you appear to be trying to reify them away by appealing to your universal of reason.

Not at all. I am an imperfect human using a perfect method imperfectly. The method itself is perfect, even if I do not use it perfectly. Since I allow that the method itself is perfect, I can correct my model in reference to that standard of perfect reason. Since I am imperfect, I may do so imperfectly, but this simply means that my understanding advances in proportion to my perfection (hence, the danger of sin).

Buddhism says that we are an imperfect humanity using an imperfect method. This means that no matter how perfect we are, the method we are trying to use is imperfect itself. The correctness of our understanding does not procede in proportion with our own perfection, because we need to worry about the perfection o f the method itself as well.

However, you do say that human perfection in Buddhahood is possible. In this case, such perfection simply becomes a universal. If there is some sort of perfection we can achieve, than that is exactly what a universal is. A universal is just another term for form, such as the form of redness. The form of redness is simply perfect redness that all red apples participate in imperfectly. If you are willing to say that there is such a thing as a perfect humanity that we individual humans participate in imperfectly, then you have admitted the existence of a form and this debate does not need to continue.

I suspect you will say that while such perfection is possible, it is only potential and not actual. While you can say this, you still need at least one true correct thing in order to make anything else knowable as correct in any capacity. This thing, whatever it is, becomes your perfection that exists in actuality.

What case? Can you show me an example of “reason itself” that is not the mental activity of a specific person? If you cannot show the existence of your reified “reason itself” then you have no case.

You said:
“Human perfection is indeed possible (i.e. Buddhahood) and until we attain that state we use reason imperfectly. Since the vast majority of us are short of that state we have perforce to work with the imperfect tools that we have available.”

In this case, “reason itself” can be defined as the reason employed by your perfect being.

 

[Sarpedon]

This is very similar to the earlier argument on how Buddhism says that everything is temporary, but it also says that a permanent release from suffering is possible. I find the “nothing can be said about Nirvana” to be a bit of a cop out. In all these examples Buddhism says things about other things but it never upholds any specific thing as true. Buddhism says that we can know things, but it also says that reason can be illusory. It says that good effects are a valid justification, but it also says that observations can be decieved. Catholicism realizes that humans are imperfect, but by positing a perfect impersonal method we can advance toward perfect knowledge in proportion to our personal perfection.

In contrast, Buddhism casts skepticism on everything. The result of this is that we can’t advance toward perfection in proportion to our own personal perfection because we need to worry about the perfection of the impersonal method itself as well. By allowing reason as correct, the Catholic can say that Catholicism is correct in terms of reason. While that individual may be personally imperfect, he can still move closer to certainty as he grows holier and more perfect. Buddhism does not allow anything as correct. As such, a Buddhist cannot say that Buddhism is true or likely in terms of anything, because that thing could be incorrect too. That’s the difference.

Unfortunately, I leave for the spring semester tomorrow so this will have to be my last post here. It’s been quite interesting discussing this with you and I wish you the best!

 

[rossum]

But you just made a new one! You said that you cannot make absolute statements using language. By stating a property (or lack thereof) of language, you made an absolute statement about language. I can keep going based on how you reply to this.

I did not make an absolute statement, I made a contingent statement. Since language is itself contingent all statements using language are contingent, including this one.

If you say that these statements are only pragmatically true, then you are just making another absolute statement- that pragmatic justifications are valid and sufficient.

Saying that they are pragmatically true is a pragmatic statement.

No matter what you say it is based on some absolute that you are drawing from.

There are, pragmatically, no absolutes for me to draw on.

The problem is the Buddhist justification for this. Buddhism lacks any defined correct thing that is defined as simply correct or reliable.

What do you claim is reliable? How can you know this thing apart from your unreliable senses and your unreliable reason. If such a reliable thing exists then we cannot reliably know what it says so it is useless.

If we have two textbooks that both have an unknown degree of error, then we cannot procede in knowledge.

If the two textbooks agree on something then we can proceed cautiously on that basis. If they disagree then we try both options and see which option is pragmatically better. We are always prepared to refer to our pragmatic appreciation of reality to evaluate possible techniques.

If we know that one textbook is correct, we can correct the other one in light of the correct textbook.

How do you know what is in the correct textbook? Do you read it? Well we have already agreed that our senses are not reliable so how do you know what you are reading is what the correct textbook actually says?

Catholicism defines reason and observation as the correct things that all other things are corrected against.

How do you know that the definition is right? I can define the colour of the sky as green, but that is not a correct definition.

Does Buddhism provide a similar correct standard?

We use techniques that get us closer to our destination.

Science upholds the physical order as the correct thing that everything else is compared too.

But science also recognises that it can never completely and accurately know the physical order. Every scientific measurement comes with an uncertainty. Science has to work with an uncertain knowledge of the physical world. There is an exact value for the charge on an electron, but science does not know what that value is, all it can say is that the value is somewhere between -1.60217644×10[sup]-19[/sup] and -1.60217652×10[sup]-19[/sup] Coulombs. No measuring device is perfect so every measurement comes with some uncertainty.

Buddhism also works with an uncertain knowledge of the world.

Buddhism says that our understanding of the physical order may be incorrect,

Agreed.

but it also says that the physical order itself may be incorrect.

No, it says that we have no completely accurate way of knowing whether or not the physical order is correct.

Not at all. I am an imperfect human using a perfect method imperfectly. The method itself is perfect, even if I do not use it perfectly.

How do you know that the method you are using is perfect? You cannot use senses or your own reason so how do you know? Mere belief is obviously insufficient.

Since I allow that the method itself is perfect

It is perfectly useless since you cannot apply it perfectly - the end result is imperfect however you use your supposedly perfect method.

In this case, “reason itself” can be defined as the reason employed by your perfect being.

Then “reason itself” is Buddhist. Since I currently have no way of thinking like the Buddha or directly knowing his thoughts then I have to fall back on my imperfect senses. In practical terms I am back in the imperfect world of my own senses.

In all these examples Buddhism says things about other things but it never upholds any specific thing as true.

Buddhism is less interested in philosophical discussions over what is true or not true than in practical discussions over what is useful or not useful.

Unfortunately, I leave for the spring semester tomorrow so this will have to be my last post here. It’s been quite interesting discussing this with you and I wish you the best!

I have also enjoyed our discussion. I hope you have a good term.

rossum