Le 13-juil.-07, à 18:42, David Nyman a écrit :
> > On 13/07/07, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I think you are trying to give a name to what is unnameable (unless >> you >> are not lobian; even lobian non-machine cannot name it). > > Perish the thought. But I was referring to 'first person primacy', > not 'the One'. Maybe something like the 'primacy of the unnameable'? > On the other hand > > "Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muß man schweigen" > > It doesn't seem to keep us quiet for long though :-) That was the young Wittgenstein talking. Of course Wittgenstein said too much here. He provokes the question: but what are you talking about? Well he will try to answer that his whole life, and get some points, imo, including, in his last book on certainty, that knowledge and belief could correspond to the same actual state of a brain/machine put in different context. Which is the basic of the Theaetetical notion of knowledge. > Is this better? > > "One may say neither that the one mind is prior and all dharmas > posterior nor that all dharmas are prior and the one mind > posterior.... If one derives all dharmas from the one mind, this is a > vertical relationship. If the mind all at once contains all dharmas, > this is a horizontal relationship. Neither vertical nor horizontal > will do. All one can say is that the mind is all dharmas, and all > dharmas are the mind. Therefore the relationship is neither vertical > nor horizontal, neither the same nor different. It is obscure, subtle > and profound in the extreme. Knowledge cannot know it, nor can words > speak it. Herein lies the reason for its being called "the realm of > the inconceivable." > > Chih-i (or Zhiyi, 538-597), founder of Chinese T'ien-t'ai Buddhism, > quoted by Jacqueline I. Stone, Original Enlightenment and the > Transformation of Medieval Japanese Buddhism, Kuroda Institute, > University of Hawai'i Press, 1999, p. 179 Those reminds me of the vertical and horizontal separation of the arithmetical person pov/hypostases: Indeed, incompleteness forces the machine to distinguish between p Bp Bp&p Bp&Dp Bp&Dp&p which are the vertical distinction, and then they are multiplied by two by the G/G* distinction. Except that "p" (truth or Sigma1-truth), with arithemtical comp) and "Bp&p" (knowability) are interestingly enough not separated by the G/G* distinction. Note that only the modal nuance having "p" in their definition are unameable by the machine. p. Of course that vertical/horizontal nuance is a coincidence, with respect to the dharmas. At least at first sight I would say. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" 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/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
