Perhaps sophistic was not accurate. Having thought some more let me use naive instead.
When I was a teenager, in the 1960s, oft times a group would get together, smoke a little dope, drink a little wine and ponder the universe and the big questions. What we came up with felt profound at the time but now it looks like what it was, naive. In fact, I seem to remember one party where the idea of emptiness and the void as all there is was discussed at length. That is the feeling I get when I read those links. Uninformed, well-intentioned, seemingly profound but ultimately naive. That a bit better? :) 2009/9/9 ornamentalmind <[email protected]>: > > > I will assume that you are using the more recent meaning of the term > sophism...rather than that used in Ancient Greese, yes? > > Using one 'definition': > "Sophism can mean two very different things: In the modern definition, > a sophism is a confusing or illogical argument used for deceiving > someone. In Ancient Greece, the sophists were a group of teachers of > philosophy and rhetoric." > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophism > > ...apparently you impune motivation upon Narjuna? Perhaps not… > difficult to tell. Perhaps a little more meat to your argument would > help us to understand? > > > On Sep 9, 8:53 am, Simon Ewins <[email protected]> wrote: >> I did read one and scanned the other. Emptiness as it is being used >> seems a bit sophistic to me. > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" 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/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
