Life: insanity after insanity. Well, maybe sanity after all

I have to laugh a bit, but it seems like now that my dissertation is done and I should be relaxing, all I do is work! But in a sense it is more of a fun kind of work… but then my dissertation had its fun too.

Amongst my recent readings, a poem called Tea, posted on Woodmore Village, was especially delicious.

I also read (1997) Buddhist reductionism (mentioned on my last post). Zen Unbound says he’ll have a look, “wearing my golf shoes and carrying a dictionary.” I would suggest waders and a machete. After reading it, I probably wouldn’t suggest it to anyone outside of philosophy and/or Buddhist studies. (If you have a look, let me know what you think.) I had to jump to the dictionary and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy several times to figure out what was happening. That said, he does convince me that the arguments in the other article ((1993) THE NO-SELF THEORY: HUME, BUDDHISM, AND PERSONAL IDENTITY) are wrong – so it’s important. Perhaps I’ll post a summary down the road.

The Hegel test went ok, I survived it at least. It only had three questions, but here is the second one:

Carefully discuss the psychological/phenomenological/ontological/social dynamic that Hegel is depicting in the “master-slave” parable? (sic) How does this dynamic play itself out within the more determinate context that is presented in “The Spiritual Animal Kingdom” (i.e. “the bourgeois zoo”)? How would you assess Hegel’s arguments?

The other two questions were similar. I’m hoping the professor has a good sense of humor, because, with time running out, I answered the last ‘part’ of this question: “Hegel’s arguments are very, good very, good very good. Though they are not to be taken as historical exegesis in any way.” [something the prof. pounded into us quite a bit]

Other than that, though, I suppose life has been fairly calm (I’m now drinking a cup of tea as per Nacho’s suggestion).

I did teach a bit on Buddhism Thursday, but only had one student. I have the space for the next 5 weeks, and I hope more will find their way there in the future. It was a lovely experience though, this one student is my only student, or if I only have one more student in all of the next 5 weeks, I will be satisfied.

Today I spent some time reading through a dialog/debate between Drs. Alan Wallace and Juan Carlos Marvizon about the nature and connections of consciousness, science, and Buddhism on a discussion list devoted to the work of the Mind and Life Institute. It is a fascinating crossroads (these three: consciousness, science, and Buddhism), and I hope to work in the area some day myself. Sadly, I’ll be missing the HUGE conference going on next week devoted to the topic, Investigating the Mind.

Suggested reading: “Neurophenomenology : A Methodological Remedy for the Hard Problem” – as much for me (I haven’t read it yet) as for anyone else. I Think this is more readable than the “Buddhist Reductionism” article I mentioned before, but don’t hold me to that. But I think it will be equally important (in my neck of the woods at least).

I’ve also been ‘turning the pages’ of Notre Dame Press book reviews (surprised by both how informative book reviews can be and how little I know about most of the topics that people devote whole books to, for instance “The Evidence for the Top Quark: Objectivity and Bias in Collaborative Experimentation“. Sheesh.)