comment

In a response to Todd's blog about REACHING NIRVANA IN THE DINING HALL.

I think your argument is flawed. You use the example of the Dog being what it is. It is a physical object, but at the same time, it is an idea. The two are seperate and don't necessarily have to be associated with each other.

Let me borrow from computer science theory a bit to address the issue. In CS, there are things called Objects. Objects have a specific set of properties that determine what the object is. The object also has a name. In this case, we have Dog. Now there can be multiple instances of this object, such as terrier, colley, shih tzu, german shephard, etc., each with their own specific set of defining characteristics and properties that distinguish them from each other. At the same time, they all still belong to the Object: Dog.

Now, say you didn't know there was an Object: Dog, but you see one of its instances, such as terrier, german shephard, etc., does the lack of knowledge of the Object: Dog negate its existance? No. In the same way, we can approach reality.

Physically, there is this thing, Dog. In our minds, we have an idea of what a dog is. But our knowledge is based on the different instances of dog that we experience. We can't experience the Object: Dog because we lack the complete knowledge of its existance. We can infer the basic properties of Object: Dog based on the aggragate information of all the different instances of dog that we know about. Such as, it has 4 legs, it has fur, it has a tail, etc. We can also infer that certain properties are not essential to defining it as Object: Dog, such as it's color, size, age. But these variables don't make it any less of an Object: Dog.

Now, if had no mental construct of what Object: Dog was, doens't mean it doens't exist. Similarly, our belief or disbelief of something doesn't validate or invalidate the matter. Example: God, man's belief or disbelief will neither negate his existance nor validate his existance.

Back to the example of Dog. When we see a dog, we understand that it is a dog because it is commonly referred to as Dog. If it were given a different label, such as Max, it would still be a dog in its essence. It is not the label that validates an object's existance, rather the object itself. Labels and names are useful because it allows people to refer to things, whether they be ideas or tangible objects, in a common way making it possible for us to have meaningful discussion.

Example: blog vs xanga. A xanga is a blog, but a blog isn't necessarily a xanga. But in our Youth Group, where the two are almost equivalent, the terms can be used interchangeably. One is a superclass of the other. But if you leave the microcosm of Youth Group and try to talk about xanga and blogs in a more general context (such as the rest of the internet), people may not be able to understand as effectively.