[MD] Reifying carrots

[MarshaV]

Buddhism planted the seeds in James:

James's biography clearly states he had read and reread 
Upanishad and Buddhist texts, texts that belonged to his 
father.  This would have been around 1870.  

Here's a list of some of the books:

    Modern Buddhist - Alabaster 
    Religion des Buddha (Vol.1) - Koeppen
    Le Buddhisme - Taine
    Weltauffas der Buddhisten - Bastian
    Brahma Somej: Four Lectures - Sen 

    (William James: In the Maelstrom of American Modernism 
        by Robert D. Richardson)




On Dec 4, 2010, at 10:10 AM, ADRIE KINTZIGER wrote:

> Hmm, yes , i was aware of it, please keep in mind the
> "Timewindow" William was living in, in that time , he was far ahead of
> everyone, in this frame, during that time, it was all state of the art.
> 
> At least some of it became , later on, in this timewindow,--indifferent in
> the balance.
> 
> James planted the seeds , some live on , some not.
> The survivors are still cutting edge of insights.
> 
> 2010/12/4 MarshaV <valkyr at att.net>
> 
>> 
>> Such fun...
>> 
>> 
>>    "The asymmetry in James's view of mind and matter may be due in part to
>> his advocacy of a "field theory" of consciousness, in contrast to an
>> "atomistic theory," which he vigorously rejects.  I would argue, however,
>> that the nature of consciousness does not intrinsically conform either to a
>> field theory or an atomistic theory.  Rather, different kinds of conscious
>> events become apparent when inspected from the perspective of each of these
>> different conceptual frameworks.  Using James's field theory, one may
>> ascertain an individual, discrete continuum of awareness; and using the
>> atomic theory one may discern within the stream of consciousness discrete
>> moments of awareness and individual, constituent mental factors of those
>> moments.  Thus, while certain features of consciousness may be perceived
>> only within the conceptual framework of a field theory, others may be
>> observed only in terms of an atomistic theory.  This complementarity is
>> reminiscent of the relation between par
>> ticle and field theories of mass/energy in modern physics.  The crucial
>> point here is that neither conceptual framework is inherent in the nature of
>> pure experience.  James seems to have fallen into the trap of reifying his
>> own concept of a field of consciousness, and this may have prevented him
>> from determining, even to his own satisfaction, the way in which
>> consciousness does and does not exist.
>> 
>>    "James did not present a practical means of transcending one's familiar
>> conceptual framework and entering into the state of pure experience.  On the
>> contrary, he declared, "Only new-born babes, or men in semi-coma from sleep,
>> drugs, illnesses, or blows, may be assumed to have an experience pure in the
>> literal sense of a that which is not yet any definite what."  Given his keen
>> interest in and appreciation for mystical experience, it is strange that he
>> apparently did not consider that advanced contemplatives may have gained
>> access to conceptually unmediated consciousness that would have a strong
>> bearing on his notion of pure experience."
>> 
>> Wallace, B. Alan, 'The Taboo of Subjectivity: Towards a New Science of
>> Consciousness',pp.114-115)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> p.s.  Please not how the word 'reifying' is being used at the bottom of the
>> first paragraph.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> __
>> 
>> 
>> Moq_Discuss mailing list
>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>> Archives:
>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> parser
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html


 
___