From: Scott Roberts (jse885@earthlink.net)
Date: Wed Aug 18 2004 - 04:18:19 BST
Dan,
>
[Scott prev]:I would attack this statement from two sides, though
restricting it to the
> >claim that Buddhist Nothingness requires faith (and let Bradley et al
take
> >care of their own). Nothingness is discerned through reason, in that a
> >logical investigation of concepts of self-inherent existence show those
> >concepts to be empty. Where a Buddhist requires faith is not to figure
this
> >out, but to keep himself seated on the meditation cushion to Realize
this,
> >that meditation works.
[Dan] I can't speak for all Buddhists but I do know from my own experience
that
> meditation isn't supposed to "work" nor does it. There is no realization
> involved in meditation. There is no reason behind meditation; there is no
> goal to achieve. A person doesn't have to keep seated on a cushion in
order
> to meditate; one can be walking down the street or driving a car or
working
> on a motorcycle or talking to someone. There is nothing to "figure out."
> Right meditation isn't an intellectual exercise.
I never said that meditation is an intellectual exercise in the sense of
figuring out math problems or working out the logic of emptiness. It
"works", in my opinion, by strengthening the intellect's power of
detachment. It doesn't do this by carrying out intellectual exercises, but
simply by spending a lot of time detaching.
[Dan:] On Buddhist Nothingness: there is no Buddhist conception of
nothingness. It
> cannot be discerned through reason for there is no concept to discern. If
> you conceptualize nothingness it is no longer nothingness. It becomes
> something, a concept of nothingness but not nothingness. It has no
opposite
> in being or existence. Yet nothingness isn't empty. There is great
working
> in nothingness.
I didn't say there was a Buddhist conception of nothingness. I said that
Buddhist logicians work their logic on concepts like self-inherent
existence to show that they are empty. Nagarjuna's works are works of logic
in this vein.
[Scott prev] On the other side, yes, we cannot conceive of or
> >live in a world in which nothing is better than anything else, but that
-- > >as empirical judgment -- only applies to us. Does it apply to atoms? > >True, > >it makes as much sense to say that "B values precondition A" as "A cause > >B", in that no science changes, but are we justified, other than by faith, > >to say that an atom "values"? (N.B., I don't think of this as a serious > >criticism of the MOQ, in that I think the value of the MOQ does not crash > >and burn if this question is left open.) > > I didn't say an atom "values" nor am I aware of Robert Pirsig saying so. > That would indicate awareness. I believe "preference" is the term he uses. That's fine. It means that what the atom does isn't "mindless mechanism". The point is: how does one know? [Scott prev] Meanwhile, on differences between Pirsig and Plotinus, consider this (from > >Ant via MSH): > > > >BEGIN MCWATT > >[Pirsig] disagrees that evolutionary theory must be supplemented by a > >teleological account (supernatural or otherwise). > > > >The MOQ does not say that intellectual patterns guide the supremacy > >of life over inanimate nature. On the contrary the MOQ says that at > >the time life triumphed over inanimate nature there were no > >intellectual patterns. (Pirsig 2004b) > > > >As noted above, Pirsig suggests instead that evolution occurred due > >to ‘spur of the moment decisions’ based on Dynamic Quality i.e. > >undefined betterness. > >END MCWATT > > > >This is, of course, in direct contradiction to Plotinus, and most all > >pre-SOM philosophers, the difference that I call top-down vs. bottom-up. > >Further, it is not just a difference, but comes at such a fundamental level > >that any similarities are relatively minor. > > How exactly is Mark's quote a direct contradiction to Plotinus? Plotinus says that Intellect DOES guide everything, while Pirsig is saying that it doesn't guide evolution. - 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 : Wed Aug 18 2004 - 04:39:06 BST