Comments for Working on Living—through philosophy http://www.georgewrisley.com/blog and poetry and music and love and family and friends and... Tue, 15 May 2012 16:32:37 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 Comment on Buddhism and Aristotle on the Appropriateness of Suffering Grief: A Further Mark Against Buddhism by Wrisley http://www.georgewrisley.com/blog/?p=282&cpage=1#comment-12329 Wrisley Tue, 15 May 2012 16:32:37 +0000 http://www.georgewrisley.com/blog/?p=282#comment-12329 Mrs. Poix, thank you very much for your comments. I appreciate them. What is your dissertation on, if you don't mind saying? Regarding your comments, you write, "The difference here is the clinging to suffering; suffering is an inevitability.Buddhists don’t want ANY beings to suffer. Suffering is not good...." Part of what I was trying to get at is that the blanket condemnation of suffering as "not good" is problematic. I take it that things such as old age, sickness, and death are inevitable, but suffering is not, according to Buddhism. It is the clinging that stems, ultimately, from ignorance of no-self that is what leads to suffering. Pain (both physical and psychic) are inevitable, but not suffering. Leaving aside the problems with the idea of no-self and its relationship to clinging and suffering, a case can be made, and Nietzsche does it, for example, that suffering does not necessarily have negative value. The broader point I was making in this blog post is that to want to end all suffering is problematic, that there are times when it is legitimate to cling to certain things (people) and experience their loss as suffering and not just some sort of diminutive psychic pain. I understand that Buddhism doesn't call upon people to become emotionless zombies. However, if one is well on the path, if one is being skillful, in the Buddhist way, then certain emotional responses (those characterized by suffering, not just psychic pain) either won't happen or if they do, then they'll be seen as unskillful, i.e., undesirable. Mrs. Poix, thank you very much for your comments. I appreciate them. What is your dissertation on, if you don’t mind saying?
Regarding your comments, you write, “The difference here is the clinging to suffering; suffering is an inevitability.Buddhists don’t want ANY beings to suffer. Suffering is not good….” Part of what I was trying to get at is that the blanket condemnation of suffering as “not good” is problematic. I take it that things such as old age, sickness, and death are inevitable, but suffering is not, according to Buddhism. It is the clinging that stems, ultimately, from ignorance of no-self that is what leads to suffering. Pain (both physical and psychic) are inevitable, but not suffering.
Leaving aside the problems with the idea of no-self and its relationship to clinging and suffering, a case can be made, and Nietzsche does it, for example, that suffering does not necessarily have negative value. The broader point I was making in this blog post is that to want to end all suffering is problematic, that there are times when it is legitimate to cling to certain things (people) and experience their loss as suffering and not just some sort of diminutive psychic pain. I understand that Buddhism doesn’t call upon people to become emotionless zombies. However, if one is well on the path, if one is being skillful, in the Buddhist way, then certain emotional responses (those characterized by suffering, not just psychic pain) either won’t happen or if they do, then they’ll be seen as unskillful, i.e., undesirable.

]]> Comment on Buddhism and Aristotle on the Appropriateness of Suffering Grief: A Further Mark Against Buddhism by Mrs Poix http://www.georgewrisley.com/blog/?p=282&cpage=1#comment-12325 Mrs Poix Mon, 14 May 2012 00:17:33 +0000 http://www.georgewrisley.com/blog/?p=282#comment-12325 One more thing that I have to add, and I apologize but I'm working on a million other things right now, but you are missing also the point of right intent. When your relative dies and you are unhappy, that is natural and Buddhists will not fault you for that because your intent is to transcend the suffering, maybe you're arguing that the value of suffering is at least creating that lesson, I'm not sure, but we are, as human beings, working on right intent and skillful means -- we don't say wrong or right -- we say unskillful. It is unskillful to have an improperly dramatic reaction to the relative's death, as much as it would be unskillful to have no reaction, as that would be emotionally barren. Think of that -- what kind of emotionless sociopathic world do you imagine Buddhists to want to inhabit? You are trying to hard, here. Buddhism is just so simple. Compassion and right intent lead to skillful means and transcendance. Meditating helps you grasp this. One more thing that I have to add, and I apologize but I’m working on a million other things right now, but you are missing also the point of right intent. When your relative dies and you are unhappy, that is natural and Buddhists will not fault you for that because your intent is to transcend the suffering, maybe you’re arguing that the value of suffering is at least creating that lesson, I’m not sure, but we are, as human beings, working on right intent and skillful means — we don’t say wrong or right — we say unskillful. It is unskillful to have an improperly dramatic reaction to the relative’s death, as much as it would be unskillful to have no reaction, as that would be emotionally barren. Think of that — what kind of emotionless sociopathic world do you imagine Buddhists to want to inhabit? You are trying to hard, here. Buddhism is just so simple. Compassion and right intent lead to skillful means and transcendance. Meditating helps you grasp this.

]]> Comment on Buddhism and Aristotle on the Appropriateness of Suffering Grief: A Further Mark Against Buddhism by Mrs Poix http://www.georgewrisley.com/blog/?p=282&cpage=1#comment-12324 Mrs Poix Mon, 14 May 2012 00:04:41 +0000 http://www.georgewrisley.com/blog/?p=282#comment-12324 I meant to say that suffering is an inevitability in samsara. Buddhists are trying to get everyone out of it. I meant to say that suffering is an inevitability in samsara. Buddhists are trying to get everyone out of it.

]]> Comment on Buddhism and Aristotle on the Appropriateness of Suffering Grief: A Further Mark Against Buddhism by Mrs Poix http://www.georgewrisley.com/blog/?p=282&cpage=1#comment-12323 Mrs Poix Mon, 14 May 2012 00:01:51 +0000 http://www.georgewrisley.com/blog/?p=282#comment-12323 I ran across your article while doing research for my dissertation. I had to comment about your theory that the negative valuation of suffering is flawed, and that suffering is good in some instances. I think you're missing the point. The difference here is the clinging to suffering; suffering is an inevitability.Buddhists don't want ANY beings to suffer. Suffering is not good -- but the way it is dealt with can be. It is about dealing with suffering that matters. See Jon Kabat-Zin. Hope this helps. I ran across your article while doing research for my dissertation. I had to comment about your theory that the negative valuation of suffering is flawed, and that suffering is good in some instances. I think you’re missing the point. The difference here is the clinging to suffering; suffering is an inevitability.Buddhists don’t want ANY beings to suffer. Suffering is not good — but the way it is dealt with can be. It is about dealing with suffering that matters. See Jon Kabat-Zin. Hope this helps.

]]> Comment on The Relational Identity of Persons and the Importance of Personal Projects by Wrisley http://www.georgewrisley.com/blog/?p=311&cpage=1#comment-12320 Wrisley Sat, 05 May 2012 23:44:15 +0000 http://www.georgewrisley.com/blog/?p=311#comment-12320 Joshua, thanks for the comments. Regarding your first point, I don't want to say that by taking on another person's project as our own we are necessarily sharing the project in the sense that you are working on a giant picture puzzle and I sit down and help you put it together. The sense that I meant it was that we take on the other person's project by having that person AND her project be ours, for example, by giving support emotionally, verbally, physically, by giving of our time, etc. The other person is the focus of our project more than her project per se. Whether this is a coherent distinction in the end, I'm not sure. But it's taking the other person, not her projects, as our project that involves taking her into our selves, assuming our projects are partially constitutive of us. Regarding your second point, insofar as love is some sort of psychological disposition primarily characterized by feelings toward someone, I take it that a person could love anything, whether there are commonalities or not, whether there are projects involved or not. Just think of some people's love for Japanese pillows (or whatever they're called). But I'd argue that love is more than a mere psychological disposition characterized by feelings. Presumably a part of that "more" is the actual lived life of love. And that is something that goes beyond feeling. Whether taking the other as a project is a necessary condition for it, I'm not so sure, though I'm tempted to think that it is. Thanks for the links. I look forward to reading them! Joshua, thanks for the comments. Regarding your first point, I don’t want to say that by taking on another person’s project as our own we are necessarily sharing the project in the sense that you are working on a giant picture puzzle and I sit down and help you put it together. The sense that I meant it was that we take on the other person’s project by having that person AND her project be ours, for example, by giving support emotionally, verbally, physically, by giving of our time, etc. The other person is the focus of our project more than her project per se. Whether this is a coherent distinction in the end, I’m not sure. But it’s taking the other person, not her projects, as our project that involves taking her into our selves, assuming our projects are partially constitutive of us.

Regarding your second point, insofar as love is some sort of psychological disposition primarily characterized by feelings toward someone, I take it that a person could love anything, whether there are commonalities or not, whether there are projects involved or not. Just think of some people’s love for Japanese pillows (or whatever they’re called). But I’d argue that love is more than a mere psychological disposition characterized by feelings. Presumably a part of that “more” is the actual lived life of love. And that is something that goes beyond feeling. Whether taking the other as a project is a necessary condition for it, I’m not so sure, though I’m tempted to think that it is.

Thanks for the links. I look forward to reading them!

]]> Comment on The Relational Identity of Persons and the Importance of Personal Projects by Joshua A. Miller http://www.georgewrisley.com/blog/?p=311&cpage=1#comment-12317 Joshua A. Miller Wed, 02 May 2012 15:41:26 +0000 http://www.georgewrisley.com/blog/?p=311#comment-12317 One more: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1107402298/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=anotherpanace-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1107402298" rel="nofollow">The Politics of Persons: Individual Autonomy and Socio-historical Selves</a> One more: The Politics of Persons: Individual Autonomy and Socio-historical Selves

]]> Comment on The Relational Identity of Persons and the Importance of Personal Projects by Joshua A. Miller http://www.georgewrisley.com/blog/?p=311&cpage=1#comment-12316 Joshua A. Miller Wed, 02 May 2012 15:40:01 +0000 http://www.georgewrisley.com/blog/?p=311#comment-12316 Some basic issues: 1. You're on the right track to distinguish the "identity" question and the "personhood" question: to be self-same over time assumes that we know what it is to be a self. Your discussion of projects seems like a major transition to personhood over the earlier question of identity. Indeed, we do share projects, but that needn't mean we share selves. We needn't be a part of each other in order to work on each others projects. 2. This raises the is/ought question: MUST friends or lovers share projects? Why? I tend to agree, but why couldn't we say that we can love one another without sharing any projects but that loving itself? Is it impossible to love someone with whom you have nothing in common? 3. I do think you're now describing relational autonomy and not relational identity. Check out: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195123344/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=anotherpanace-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0195123344" rel="nofollow">Relational Autonomy: Feminist Perspectives on Autonomy, Agency, and the Social Self</a> <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195074858/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=anotherpanace-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0195074858" rel="nofollow">Love's Knowledge: Essays on Philosophy and Literature</a> <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0691126240/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=anotherpanace-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0691126240" rel="nofollow">The Reasons of Love</a> Some basic issues:

1. You’re on the right track to distinguish the “identity” question and the “personhood” question: to be self-same over time assumes that we know what it is to be a self. Your discussion of projects seems like a major transition to personhood over the earlier question of identity. Indeed, we do share projects, but that needn’t mean we share selves. We needn’t be a part of each other in order to work on each others projects.

2. This raises the is/ought question: MUST friends or lovers share projects? Why? I tend to agree, but why couldn’t we say that we can love one another without sharing any projects but that loving itself? Is it impossible to love someone with whom you have nothing in common?

3. I do think you’re now describing relational autonomy and not relational identity. Check out:
Relational Autonomy: Feminist Perspectives on Autonomy, Agency, and the Social Self
Love’s Knowledge: Essays on Philosophy and Literature
The Reasons of Love

]]> Comment on Reverence by Derek Caudill http://www.georgewrisley.com/blog/?p=302&cpage=1#comment-12299 Derek Caudill Thu, 02 Feb 2012 13:40:48 +0000 http://www.georgewrisley.com/blog/?p=302#comment-12299 We'd definitely rather experience the profound meaning of appreciation and communion rather than the groveling deference due to a Roman Emperor or Middle-Eastern patriarch, wouldn't we? And not, I think, just because we prefer it that way, but because some of us see that that attitude is more true and right and real. We’d definitely rather experience the profound meaning of appreciation and communion rather than the groveling deference due to a Roman Emperor or Middle-Eastern patriarch, wouldn’t we? And not, I think, just because we prefer it that way, but because some of us see that that attitude is more true and right and real.

]]> Comment on Reverence by Debbie Redwood http://www.georgewrisley.com/blog/?p=302&cpage=1#comment-12296 Debbie Redwood Wed, 11 Jan 2012 08:16:04 +0000 http://www.georgewrisley.com/blog/?p=302#comment-12296 Inferred segregated, congregations utter mumbled numbed of meaning tired refrains into clasped hands with bowed heads. Contrast... Described deliberate, delicate and vivid humanistic homage bestowed to the intricacies of existence. Does worship limit us from seeing all that is truly around us? Does it buffer us by inserting a middle man? If a child’s parents hand him everything he needs, he thanks them but does not appreciate all that is involved in the actual process of being provided for. So, in this respect, I would say that yes, it does limit our awe. But, worship is more than “Intadakimasu”. Worship can provide a venue for needs to be satisfied in a manner unlike any other. Worship is relief when suffering. Worship is confession when burdened. Worship is beseeching when desperate. Worship is solitude when overcome. Worship is rejoicing when happy. It is an age old shout-out to the universe spoken without words. Worship asks “I am here; are you?” The answer may come by false idols a true god, or echoes of our own voice bouncing around in our head. But comfort is found if somewhere far off in the distance strained ears think they hear the word “Yes”. Inferred segregated, congregations utter mumbled numbed of meaning tired refrains into clasped hands with bowed heads.
Contrast…
Described deliberate, delicate and vivid humanistic homage bestowed to the intricacies of existence.

Does worship limit us from seeing all that is truly around us?

Does it buffer us by inserting a middle man?

If a child’s parents hand him everything he needs, he thanks them but does not appreciate all that is involved in the actual process of being provided for.

So, in this respect, I would say that yes, it does limit our awe.

But, worship is more than “Intadakimasu”.

Worship can provide a venue for needs to be satisfied in a manner unlike any other.

Worship is relief when suffering.
Worship is confession when burdened.
Worship is beseeching when desperate.
Worship is solitude when overcome.
Worship is rejoicing when happy.

It is an age old shout-out to the universe spoken without words.

Worship asks “I am here; are you?”

The answer may come by false idols a true god, or echoes of our own voice bouncing around in our head. But comfort is found if somewhere far off in the distance strained ears think they hear the word “Yes”.

]]> Comment on Something about the self by Caitlin Shapland http://www.georgewrisley.com/blog/?p=296&cpage=1#comment-12151 Caitlin Shapland Thu, 22 Dec 2011 13:58:59 +0000 http://www.georgewrisley.com/blog/?p=296#comment-12151 I don't find it foolish. If you think about Christmas and believing in Santa Claus, your parents don't tell you you are stupid for having believed in something for 'x' long. At least with my mother, it was me asking questions, and upon receiving the truth, the disappointment, I was rewarded with the opportunity to use my imagination to perpetuate his existence for my younger siblings. Whether or not the path we choose leads to where we think it does, there's a certain serenity in saying "I chose this for myself and this is where it should take me, and I am excited." and knowing that whether or not it comes out the way it should, you have a destination, you know, ultimately, where you wish to end up. In my best estimation, which role you fill on said path is the most important part. Are you a lone antagonist, using your personal journey to meditate on your decisions, weigh options, and think for yourself? Are you a leading antagonist, disguising your questioning by perpetuating the belief to the masses and using their belief to strengthen your own? Are you a sheep, a character nonessential to the antagonist as an ally, but you make him/her your compass on your path? Whichever role you fill (and they all must be filled) there are pros and cons, but I find it hard to believe many find peace as sheep. In the deepest darkness, in the midst of torture, there are things that anchor you to yourself, your sanity. If on your journey, your destination is powerful enough to be that anchor for you in your greatest time of need...I don't find it an unworthy cause at all. The poetry is well written in my opinion. I like that you are direct and resonating, asking questions and allowing their impact to create the flow and weight of your words. Unlike others' methods to maintain a sense of mystery to create questions, to suggest weight. You cannot read this poem and shrug it off, where you can with the others. I'm not schooled in Philosophy or Literature... I just like poetry =) I don’t find it foolish. If you think about Christmas and believing in Santa Claus, your parents don’t tell you you are stupid for having believed in something for ‘x’ long. At least with my mother, it was me asking questions, and upon receiving the truth, the disappointment, I was rewarded with the opportunity to use my imagination to perpetuate his existence for my younger siblings. Whether or not the path we choose leads to where we think it does, there’s a certain serenity in saying “I chose this for myself and this is where it should take me, and I am excited.” and knowing that whether or not it comes out the way it should, you have a destination, you know, ultimately, where you wish to end up.
In my best estimation, which role you fill on said path is the most important part. Are you a lone antagonist, using your personal journey to meditate on your decisions, weigh options, and think for yourself? Are you a leading antagonist, disguising your questioning by perpetuating the belief to the masses and using their belief to strengthen your own? Are you a sheep, a character nonessential to the antagonist as an ally, but you make him/her your compass on your path? Whichever role you fill (and they all must be filled) there are pros and cons, but I find it hard to believe many find peace as sheep.
In the deepest darkness, in the midst of torture, there are things that anchor you to yourself, your sanity. If on your journey, your destination is powerful enough to be that anchor for you in your greatest time of need…I don’t find it an unworthy cause at all.

The poetry is well written in my opinion. I like that you are direct and resonating, asking questions and allowing their impact to create the flow and weight of your words. Unlike others’ methods to maintain a sense of mystery to create questions, to suggest weight. You cannot read this poem and shrug it off, where you can with the others.

I’m not schooled in Philosophy or Literature… I just like poetry =)

]]>