Cari Alex e Stan, Cari Tutti, condivido pienamente l'espistemologica impostazione filosofico-scientifica di Alex e la logico-matematica insiemistica e/o la "gerarchia della sussunzione in evoluzione" di Stan. Comunque, il riduzionismo non appaga nè paga. Un abbraccio collettivo alla rete Fis. Francesco
2016-05-01 0:38 GMT+02:00 Alex Hankey <alexhan...@gmail.com>: > It is good to see the discussion developing into deep considerations of > the history (histories?) of the metaphysical understanding of the nature of > the self, the soul, and the world(s) of experience, including the material > universe in which it finds itself. > > I do not claim to have any great expertise in understanding Nagarjuna's > approach, but we have to realise that both he and the great exponent of > Vedanta, Adishankara, also known as Shankaracharya (meaning teacher of > liberation), are said to have used almost identical formulations, albeit > with a different emphasis. While Nagarjuna used the concept of emptiness as > the foundation, Adishankara stayed within the traditional Vedic scheme > where 'fullness' or completeness / wholeness is regarded as fundamental. > > While it is certainly true that to experience the 'self' clearly, all > mental content has to allowed to settle down and fade away (one aspect of > 'Chitta Vritti Nirodha', a definition of Yoga) the condition for > maintaining that stably is that the subtle energy, prana (life-breath), > should be enlivened fully, which is why the enlivenment (ayama) of prana > i.e. pranaayama (normal spelling pranayama, in which the long 'a' is not > explicitly emphasised) is a fundamental Yoga exercise, usually practised > before meditation (Dhyana) practices in which the mind moves to its empty > state (samadhi). As can be seen, increasing the prana (life-energy) to a > state of fullness is thus an integral part of attaining a stable state of > pure consciousness (samadhi). > > It is the fullness of the state of prana that stabilizes the mind from > influences that might bring it out of samadhi. In particular, various > emotions can block the flows of subtle energies (several websites explain > this in detail e.g. Google on acupuncture meridians - emotions). Fullness > of prana is thus considered equivalent to emotional stability, which > requires balanced positive emotions and feelings. > > Both Nagarjuna and Adishankara are then concerned with how it is that > all-that-exists emerges from the original absolute. Nagarjuna evidently > shows that all things including all sentient beings have a 'dependent' > existence - they do not exist in and of themselves. Adishankara on the > other hand uses Vedic physics and metaphysics to trace how they emerge at > various levels of perception. The essence of his argument is to show how > the mental sensory apparatus came from the original source / Absolute, and > thus how all objects of sensation can be traced back there. > > In modern terms, all things we have ever experientially encountered are > quantum fields, and all quantum fields seem to have emerged from the Big > Bang via the process of symmetry breaking at its source - the inflationary > process. But symmetry breaking is an instability, and when one inspects the > information states that that instability supports, they turn out to have a > similar structure to O=======>, the one proposed in the material that was > distributed. > > I feel that the role and significance of instabilities in the physical > world, particularly life processes, has not been adequately expounded and > that we may only be beginning to understand them. > > I hope this helps. > > Alex > > On 30 April 2016 at 08:18, steven bindeman <bindem...@verizon.net> wrote: > >> I hope the following passage I’ve written on Nagarjuna will be of use for >> this discussion on the nature of self. The passage is from a manuscript >> I’ve just completed on silence and postmodernism. >> >> Nagarjuna’s thinking is deeply conversant with silence and with the use >> of paradox as well. For him, contradictory things are never “either/or,” >> but are always “both/and.” Refusing to choose between opposing metaphysical >> problems, he would recommend responding through silence instead. For an >> example of his reductive reasoning process, consider the following: >> >> Whatever is dependently co-arisen >> That is explained to be emptiness. >> That, being a dependent designation, >> Is itself the middle way. >> >> Something that is not dependently arisen >> Such a thing does not exist. >> Therefore a nonempty thing >> Does not exist. >> >> Nagarjuna is criticizing the common paradoxical occurrence that when we >> attribute abstract concepts (“something that does not dependently exist”) >> like emptiness to the status of “reality” (like we do with the Platonic >> forms), then they seem to be applicable to everything, while on the other >> hand when we emphasize instead the individual uniqueness and particularity >> of any one thing (“whatever is dependently co-arisen”), this emphasis makes >> it impossible to categorize its likeness with other things. Nagarjuna’s >> point is that the abstract concept of emptiness and the concrete nature of >> any particular empty thing are in fact codependent. He calls this >> codependency “Conditioned Arising.” His “middle way” resolves the paradox >> by viewing neither the abstract idea nor the concrete thing as having a >> separate reality — both instead are characterized as “‘thought >> constructions’ founded on experience.’ As such, they are not absolutely >> real or absolutely unreal. …This middle path could thus be adopted in >> understanding all forms of experience, whether they be linguistic, social, >> political, moral, or religious.” >> >> Another way of approaching an understanding of the middle way has to do >> with recognizing it as constituting a resolution of the identity/difference >> problem. According to standard Buddhist doctrine the most dangerous false >> view possible is the belief in a permanent, independent self (also commonly >> referred to as the concept of identity). This notion of self is symptomatic >> of our deepest fears, concerning things like death and the possibility of >> our personal nonexistence. The concept of difference, which is the other >> side of the problem, is the belief that nothing is real; it also asserts >> the absence of all identities. This position would lead to the most mundane >> things becoming unintelligible. Nagarjuna’s solution to this problem is his >> assertion that neither identity nor difference is real. Both notions, when >> seen properly, are “empty” of self-essence. They can exist only together >> and not separately. Nagarjuna’s way of resolving this problem, by >> pointing to the interdependency of identity and difference, is remarkably >> similar to the one proposed by Merleau-Ponty many years later. >> >> Steve Bindeman >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Fis mailing list >> Fis@listas.unizar.es >> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis >> >> > > > -- > Alex Hankey M.A. (Cantab.) PhD (M.I.T.) > Distinguished Professor of Yoga and Physical Science, > SVYASA, Eknath Bhavan, 19 Gavipuram Circle > Bangalore 560019, Karnataka, India > Mobile (Intn'l): +44 7710 534195 > Mobile (India) +91 900 800 8789 > ____________________________________________________________ > > 2015 JPBMB Special Issue on Integral Biomathics: Life Sciences, > Mathematics and Phenomenological Philosophy > <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00796107/119/3> > > _______________________________________________ > Fis mailing list > Fis@listas.unizar.es > http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > >
_______________________________________________ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
