gam@proper.UUCP (07/21/84)
> From: abgrady\@dciem.UUCP Brian Grady > Organization: D.C.I.E.M., Toronto, Canada > > I find the surface agreement on this point between the behaviourists and the > Zen concept of No-Mind to be quite amusing, considering their > vastly differing origins. > Says the behaviourist: "Where is this mind? Show it to me!" > Says the buddhist: "You say you hear, and think. Who hears? What thinks?" > ... > > I find this an interesting model compared to the behaviourist model. > If, as the Buddhists say, our 'self' is just a collection of learned > responses and reactions to our environment, and that the 'ego' > is an illusion resulting from sensory stimulation, does this > mean that the behaviourists now could have a philisophico/religious > platform to stand on? Any takers? I'm so glad someone brought this up. Actually my initiation of the mind/brain discussion was intended to lead into a discussion of Zen (as I did not expect to convert any minds out there to behaviorism anyway). Yes, it is very facinating to me that Zen and behaviorism have gone in exactly opposite directions to reach the same conclusions. Behaviorism is the most dogmatically scientific of psychological philosophies. Zen is the most right-brained, arational (sic) of religious philosophies. Again, just as with physics, Western science inadvertently backs up into Eastern mysticism. Skinner had written a paper on "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintanence" in reference to neo-romanticism in literature, (which I haven't read) but I wonder if he has examined the startling similarity of his philosophy with Zen. I am studying both with great interest and facination. -- Gordon A. Moffett { hplabs!nsc, decvax!sun!amd, ihnp4!dual } !proper!gam