From: Matt the Enraged Endorphin (mpkundert@students.wisc.edu)
Date: Tue Nov 12 2002 - 04:28:49 GMT
Scott,
We've had repeated confrontations on the role absoluteness in the MoQ (or,
actually, philosophy in general). This newest interlocution is
interesting, but in the end I find it no more persuasive then the others.
The passage from Masao Abe is interesting to meditate on, but as an
absolute I think it falls into the same problems I've outlined before: its
either ubiquitous or in in "bad faith." For instance, I don't see how you
can be reminded of anything from "something" that is sufficiently "empty."
If it is really empty, then its empty. This is partly why I don't
understand how we distinguish emptiness from being/non-being. I would take
emptiness to be a point about the lack of essence. But by this, I don't
see why we need to distinguish it from being/non-being.
But if I grant this, I don't see how we can have a True emptiness (as the
pure activity of emptying). This sounds like an essence. By this regard,
the absolute falls into bad faith. As I said in my recent post to Peter,
an ironist (who, I would assume, can be easily translated into somebody who
is in the process of emptying) cannot think his position to be any more of
an essence, as Truth, then anybody else's. By the same token, if in the
pure activity of emptying, then there is no absolute. Its been emptied out.
Now, meditating on emptiness seems like a useful thing to do. I just don't
think it works as an absolute. I don't see why we need a contradiction (an
empty absolute or an absolute empty) if we have an alternative that can
move us beyond it.
Matt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
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 12 2002 - 04:35:48 GMT