Einstein's relativity was an enormous effort in combining maths with the empirical in my view. Some relate Duns Scotus and Occham with a break from authority and the opening up of possibilities in thinking and away from the contemplation of miracles (etc). I don't associate any of this with Eastern mysticism, but rather foot-soldiers at the bench like Hopf. It is true that one never meets nature without being part of it and that one can choose to meet it with a head full of the book of spells or the books of science - or perhaps with neither other than through 'slippage'. Given the crud around to soak up, one probably has to spend a lot of time trying to observe and speculate as far as one can without the baggage. Not being Einstein, my science has been limited to taking its books on trust and doing a few things, though I can demonstrate him doing just this in work on 'molecular distances' and supportive critique of Planck. We neglect much if we make the scientific model (there isn't 'one') so rigid it can't influence the person, integrity and a place of safety in intellectual virtue. There is something of the scientist in thinking 'fuck it, I'd rather die than live on my knees' - though many scientists have lacked this. I have come tor respect Orn enough because of what he is able to say about society. I rather hope he is not 'bowing to goat's heads', but if he was, would have to wonder whether this were connected to the sense he often makes.
On 30 Nov, 16:22, nominal9 <[email protected]> wrote: > Emptiness merely means the > truth that anything is empty of inherent existence. No thing/thought > arises out of nothing. Further, such things have component parts. If > they are conceptual or perceptual, specific thoughts/words etc. are > involved and have direct links to it and those so linked things are a > part and parcel of the thing currently under investigation. Thus, it > is related to other things/thoughts/concepts etc. Being so related > directly implies a relationship and relative nature. This all > identifies the set of relative/subjective ‘mind’. > > There also exists that which has no components or movement. This is > the absolute/objective ‘mind’. > > And, we have in fact produced a synthetic separation here too. > > On a more mundane level, Albert E.’s addition of relativity to > western > thought has helped to support and change previous anti-metaphysical > views. The result is the philosophical corner currently most find > themselves painted into. A more practical level helps one to > understand how politicians, educators, thinkers etc. now find no > ‘center’…no ethos other than one without a possibility of actual > ethics. This because ‘everything is relative’. Well, it is for their > thinking…but not in any other way. / ornamentalmind > > Now this has some meat to it, Orn,... but I wonder if you aren't > making some sort of mistake in the way that you "posit" or define the > word-term "mind" in the one case as opposed to the other what you call > the distinction between .... relative/subjective 'mind' as > distinguished from absolute/objective "mind"? > Is a person of "two minds" (I ask in pun)?.... Now, considering the > little that I do know about contemplative or meditative philosophies > (Little, I said).....Where do the two "minds" reside?... Is the > relative/subjective 'mind' particular and peculiar to the single > person? But is the absolute/objective 'mind' somehow "outside" the > person (if northing else in the sense of having an existence or a > status apart from the particular and peculiar single person? Is the > absolute/ objective mind a "state of consciousness that the mind has > to attain... go to, to use a spatial term? > > I have to say, in warning... whenever I hear anyone say "objective > mind" I pretty much automatically think, "phenomenologist"... my > personal bane, althiough it is an "epistemological option up to each > individual.s "choice" to decide. > > A little disjointed as to sequence but... to get back to the relative/ > subjective mind... can it "exist" (in the sense of function, if > nothing else) in the absence of those exrternal "stimuli" from > "something" external to it?... what's the separation point or the"cut- > off" betwen the outside "thing" and the stimulus to the senses or > otherwise...( intellect or emotion, as examples of otherwise). In > consequence... are all such relative/subjective "thoughts" part of the > mind or are they ONLY "specific thoughts/words etc. are > involved and have direct links to it and those so linked things are a > part and parcel of the thing currently under investigation" (your > words)?... I hope you see where I'm going with this... if my relative/ > sibjective thoughts of an "outside" thing are part and parcel of the > said "thing"... then any "mistakes" I may have in my understanding of > the said thing are because the thing "Lied" to me???? > nominal9 > > On Nov 28, 2:25 am, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > “… If the experience of emptiness is to make all relative then I can't > > make it as I'm sure I wouldn't stay here if all was such.” – archy > > > No need to leave then Neil! > > > As far as I can tell, there is no ‘making’ involved…such activity > > would be like standing before one of Van Gogh’s Starry Night paintings > > and tagging it (spray painting it). In this sense, what is …is. > > > In an apparently different sense, any such analysis of anything > > apprehended through the senses will include a related conceptual > > nature (as well as a contextual nature). Emptiness merely means the > > truth that anything is empty of inherent existence. No thing/thought > > arises out of nothing. Further, such things have component parts. If > > they are conceptual or perceptual, specific thoughts/words etc. are > > involved and have direct links to it and those so linked things are a > > part and parcel of the thing currently under investigation. Thus, it > > is related to other things/thoughts/concepts etc. Being so related > > directly implies a relationship and relative nature. This all > > identifies the set of relative/subjective ‘mind’. > > > There also exists that which has no components or movement. This is > > the absolute/objective ‘mind’. > > > And, we have in fact produced a synthetic separation here too. > > > On a more mundane level, Albert E.’s addition of relativity to western > > thought has helped to support and change previous anti-metaphysical > > views. The result is the philosophical corner currently most find > > themselves painted into. A more practical level helps one to > > understand how politicians, educators, thinkers etc. now find no > > ‘center’…no ethos other than one without a possibility of actual > > ethics. This because ‘everything is relative’. Well, it is for their > > thinking…but not in any other way. > > > On Nov 27, 10:13 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 'Holes' come in for much philosophical treatment too. Early atomist > > > theories made much of them and voids. Newton got rather a long way by > > > construing space as separate from body. If the experience of > > > emptiness is to make all relative then I can't make it as I'm sure I > > > wouldn't stay here if all was such. > > > > On 28 Nov, 06:06, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I would doubt Nom that any of this kind of void has anything to do > > > > with thoughts in physics about the nature of emptiness. This is about > > > > essential conditions in being. I'd admit to some similarities with > > > > relativity. There is stuff to learn from these sources though I don't > > > > see it boiling down to much. > > > > > On 27 Nov, 19:32, "Serenity Smiles" <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > Madhayamaka Buddhism vis a vis Hindu vedanta - this is a very good > > > > > site to > > > > > visit. have not studied it fully myself yet > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > From: "nominal9" <[email protected]> > > > > > Sent: Friday, November 27, 2009 4:57 PM > > > > > To: "Epistemology" <[email protected]> > > > > > Subject: [epistemology 10995] Re: Different points of view. > > > > > > > while most schools of Tibetan > > > > > > Buddhism do make a synthetic separation, call it void/not-void for > > > > > > now, ... etc./ ornamentalmind > > > > > > > I'm lazy, Orn, especially when it comes to the "meditative > > > > > > religions- > > > > > > philosophies" named....can you save me some reading and give me a > > > > > > notion of what is contained in the "void" or whatever else the > > > > > > different views may care to call it?.... and what is the character > > > > > > or > > > > > > the special way in which the "synthesis" interaction you speak of > > > > > > takes place between the two... void .. non-void... > > > > > > nominal9 > > > > > > > On Nov 25, 1:56 am, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > >> ��The Tibetan Buddhists call these two aspects the void and > > > > > >> nonvoid. The nonvoid is the reality of visible objects. The > > > > > >> void,�� � soc > > > > > > >> A slight addition to this statement�while most schools of Tibetan > > > > > >> Buddhism do make a synthetic separation, call it void/not-void for > > > > > >> now, how these two truths are apprehended/understood varies from > > > > > >> one > > > > > >> school to the next. That is, the very notion of �reality� and > > > > > >> what > > > > > >> �visible objects� are differs greatly from one system to > > > > > >> another. > > > > > > >> For a simple overview, see: > > > > > > >> �Appearance & Reality, The Two Truths in the Four Buddhist Tenet > > > > > >> Systems� by Guy Newland, Snow Lion. > > > > > > >> On Nov 24, 9:47 pm, socratus <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > >> > � The idea that the universe can be viewed as the compound > > > > > >> > of two basic orders, the implicate and the explicate, can be > > > > > >> > found in many other traditions. > > > > > >> > The Tibetan Buddhists call these two aspects the void and > > > > > >> > nonvoid. The nonvoid is the reality of visible objects. The > > > > > >> > void, like the implicate order, is the birthplace of all things > > > > > >> > in the universe, . . . > > > > > >> > . . . only the void is real and all forms in the objective world > > > > > >> > are illusory, . . . . > > > > > >> > The Hindus call the implicate level of reality Brahman. > > > > > >> > Brahman is formless but is the birthplace of all forms in > > > > > >> > visible reality, which appear out of it and then enfold back > > > > > >> > into it in endless flux. > > > > > >> > . . . consciousness is not only a subtler form of matter, > > > > > >> > but it is more fundamental than matter, and in the Hindu > > > > > >> > cosmology it is matter that has emerged from consciousness, > > > > > >> > and not the other way around. Or as the Vedas put it, the > > > > > >> > physical world is brought into being through both the > > > > > >> > � veiling� and � projecting� powers of consciousness. > > > > > >> > . . . the material universe is only a second- generation > > > > > >> > reality, a creation of veiled consciousness, the Hindus > > > > > >> > say that it is transitory and unreal, or � maya�. > > > > > >> > . . . > > > > > >> > This same concept can be found in Judaic thought. > > > > > >> > . . . . in shamanistic thinking . . . . . . > > > > > >> > . . . . . . > > ... > > read more » -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
