From: Scott Roberts (jse885@earthlink.net)
Date: Wed Nov 24 2004 - 17:11:47 GMT
Platt,
> Thanks, Scott. Makes sense in a weird sort of way. What Buddhist
> philosophy does, in essence, is deny philosophy. "Thought is not a path
to
> reality,." itself a thought that is neither real nor unreal, etc.
On the contrary (in my opinion), the logic of contradictory identity
provides a new basis for philosophy (new to the West, anyway, though it
does occur, albeit rarely, for example in Nicholas of Cusa and Coleridge).
It does not imply that "thought is not a path to reality", which to me is a
SOM proposition: there is reality, and then there is thought *about*
reality, or subject/object dualism. Instead, thought *is* reality, when it
is understood to operate by means of self-contradictory identity, and works
just like (better: is a form of) DQ/SQ interaction. There are not two
things, DQ and SQ. There is only the interaction of the dynamic and the
static, each denying the other as it constitutes the other.
>
> Of such conundrums and paradoxes Buddhist "philosophy" appears to thrive.
> Like those baffling koans.
Their purpose is not to baffle. Their purpose is become obvious. They
baffle because we are used to thinking in SOM terms. Their purpose is to
get us to think in new ways.
> Of course, the problem is such a philosophy hardly appeals to the
> practical-minded, like those who find it of value to survive in a world
> where lions, tigers and bears don't understand paradox and exhibit no
> sense of humor. (E.B. White wrote, "Paradox and humor get close to the
> fire of truth.")
There is nothing impractical about the logic of contradictory identity. It
does not replace ordinary logic, but instead is useful in areas where
ordinary logic fails, notably in philosophy and religion. Ordinary logic
works just fine in figuring out how to deal with lions. It doesn't work in
figuring out "what am I?".
>
> Be that as it may, you've nailed the Buddhist (and Pirsig's) notion of
> "self." I'm grateful for being enlightened. :-)
Well, it is not at all clear to me that this is Pirsig's notion of the self
as well. He seems to think that koans exist only to baffle, so they serve
to stop thinking, not to get one to a new level of thinking. It could be
that he didn't want to complicate the MOQ, so he avoided getting into the
ins and outs of Buddhist philosophy, or it could be he has a limited
understanding of it (which is pretty common, even among those who think of
themselves as Buddhists -- comparable to theists who turn God into an
idol). I just don't know. His treatment of the self in Lila sounds to me
like a limited understanding.
- 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 Nov 24 2004 - 17:15:31 GMT