From: Scott R (jse885@spinn.net)
Date: Tue Nov 18 2003 - 21:17:02 GMT
Steve,
> I think I read the Dalia Lama talking of mind as a sense and counting 6
> senses. Scott? Would intellectual and social value be thought of as
> perceived through the sense called mind?
One could say that. Yes, Buddhism often treats the mind as a sense organ
that perceives thoughts, feelings, and such. There is a translation
difficulty here, though, and I forget what the Sanskrit/Pali word that gets
translated into "mind" (plus the diffulty that the word "mind" in English
ranges broad and far). I have no particular problem with looking at the mind
as "a somewhat that perceives", but if one stops there one leaves out of
account that which produces thoughts. In any case, this thread (which I've
renamed) is about the applicability of truth by correspondence, and my
position is that it is restricted to sense-perceptible particulars, with
"sense-perceptible" explicitly defined to exclude particulars of the mind or
of value, since I do not consider propositions about non-physical
particulars to be amenable to "truth by correspondence". Either because they
are about generalities (like scientific hypotheses) or because they do not
refer to anything outside the mind by which I can convince someone of their
truth. So "I feel angry" is true if and only if I feel angry, but if someone
denies it, there is nothing for me to do to convince them of its truth, as I
could if the proposition is about sense-perceptible particulars.
- Scott
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Nov 18 2003 - 21:17:47 GMT