Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Examples of f2 transforms |
Posted by: | nj |
Date/Time: | 17/01/2004 20:59:31 |
Hello, GSM. You wrote: 1. "When a modeler detects and codes a pattern, how does a researcher verify that there is a pattern, what presuppositions are present, and how do these factors affect the outcome? Similarly, these remarks are equally relevant to an investigator who has done no part of the development of the patterning but who wishes to determine the validity of the proposals being made by that patterning." Yes, well, if what you care about is the description of the patterning, then challenging the description requires challenging the description's terms and the deductive entailments of the description. If you want to test the validity of the patterning, you have to find out if you can reproduce it. If the patterning leads to a state, and what you care about is achieving the state, then you want to know if you can enter the state, regardless of how the state is described. You mentioned Hindu and Buddhist practice. Inner silence does not seem to me to be a state that teachers of Hinduism and Buddhism are competent to help people attain. Nevertheless, if while sitting all day, chanting and inhaling incense, you can attain a state of inner silence, then you can credit your practice of sitting for your attainment of that state. The Buddha supposedly eschewed the masochistic practices of some ascetics, while he was working to attain Nirvana. Yet he became adept at those practices first. I don't see how his achievement of sitting and staring, or just sitting with his eyes closed, is that much of an improvement. But didn't he walk around some, and talk, too? OK, then. -nj |