“One interest of mine in this Orn is the overlap between this kind of writing and mainstream philosophy (actually something more esoteric than Wallace)…” – Archy
While I have no doubt your are attempting to be transparent Neil, I must profess to often be puzzled by your writing style so will ask questions to clarify your intent, OK? I am not at all sure what you mean by ‘this kind of writing’. Until you clarify this, I will assume you mean things like the Wallace article. With this assumption in mind, and knowing that the current presentation of his was directed to a ‘popular’ rather than a ‘deeper’ audience, I wonder how you approach any analysis of comparisons between mainstream Buddhist philosophy and what you are calling mainstream philosophy. Here I will also assume that this latter is what is commonly considered as Western philosophy. I also tacitly assume that this is also seen as a progression of greater and greater understanding although I am not sure of this in your case. Anyway, much has been written about different Buddhist tenets. And, much has made comparisons between their systems of thought and current day Western philosophy. Again, this latter, IF approached in a manner of a complete study, learning how each philosophy developed and what its intention and understandings actually are, it is a very complex issue. Perhaps you mean ‘esoteric’ in this sense? If so, I will assume that you are meaning that one must study a great deal to grok the meaning of even one, let alone ‘all’ philosophers in the West today. I realize these are big assumptions but without further input from you, they are what I am left with. Now, IF you are also implying that current day ‘mainstream philosophy’ in the West is more esoteric than that of Buddhist philosophers like Nagarjuna, Chandrakirti, Asanga, Dharmakirti and the Indian pundit Shantadiva, I remain perplexed. And, I am not sure if this is due to a matter of semantics and the meaning of ‘esoteric’ being used or other thoughts you have. Again, my guess is that the example you give is meant to be instructional and illuminating. Sadly I must confess I found it to be neither. Unless, again I will make an assumption, you are saying that a person/philosopher may embrace some given theology/set of beliefs that are not considered by others, you included, to be accurate yet still has valid and useful insights, then I sort of get what you are driving at. But, even here, I don’t quite grok. Yet another guess as to your intention is that your last paragraph is used to make your “not direct” point. And, with this in mind, I see quite a few notions intertwined. One is a healthy skepticism of authority figures. If this is in fact an aspect of your intended communication, I find it difficult to know whether you have specific persons in mind or just a general class. If your intention is a more personal communication, including a wish to talk more directly and without the use of ‘experts’, OK. As to simplexity, I think we have been having a go at that here at Mind’s Eye all along, no? Yet, your apparent ‘need for arguments in’ the realm thereof remains opaque too. And, finally, IF this more personal projected intention has to do with a preference when it comes to a perceived dichotomy of ‘great leaders’ and ‘honest people’, this is well worth a topic of its own, no? All of this is giving you credit for not intending to use complex question, nor appeal to complexity while avoiding argument by question however subtle (“My guess is that…”) even though you have admitted to similar devices over the years. On Oct 26, 8:40 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > One interest of mine in this Orn is the overlap between this kind of > writing and mainstream philosophy (actually something more esoteric > than Wallace). Einstein once said god had cursed him, the anti- > authoritarian, by making him an authority. I shy away from the notion > of personalised authority, sages and so on, as they are usually > disappointments, often corrupt. This said, other people can often > help with what is missing inside me by sharing their experience. I > think, in terms we might share, there is profit in such and one we > shouldn't be embarrassed to acknowledge. You are something of a > disciple Bill - no harm in that as long as the boss ain't got horns > and ice-cold semen. Even if the latter were true, I might stick > around at the length of a sturdy barge pole, for the laughs. I could > once sit through Hamlet being bored and not knowing the plot. Now > enlightened, I sit bored knowing the plot. In the process I have > learned, though not to like Shakespeare. This will be a bit > lengthy ... > JD Bernal (1954) Science in History Vol. 3 (of 6). > 'From 1880 onwards government policy, particularly foreign and > colonial policy, has largely been dictated by the urge to secure > greater shares of the world markets for the products of monopoly > enterprises, especially in the export of such capital goods as steel > and machinery. This is the pattern of imperialism - once profoundly > flaunted, now a reproach that needs to be explained away - which in > one form or another, under the Union Jack or the Stars and Stripes, > remains the dominant form of capitalism. .... Hence the many wars, > small and large, which have plagued the world these last 70 years. > War and war preparations have also themselves been an essential outlet > for the products of the most powerful monopoly firms in the steel and > chemical industries. > ... Disarmament is feared and is being continually put off by the > Western powers, as much for economic as for political reasons. > > I've actually been reading this old marxist to check out feelings that > most people still have no clue about science that is more than 50 > years old. His reporting of actual science is very similar to today's > New Scientist. Bernal is immensely erudite and accurate on the > science itself, though totally conned by the Sino-Soviet Paradise. > One could almost read 'Haliburton' into the passage above. Two years > after publication, Britain, France and America were at each others > throats over domination of the Middle East - the US won the prize (a > poison chalice?) - and I would say most people still haven't got the > simplified but accurate economic message - one Bernal did get right > whilst not understanding 'socialism' at all and being totally conned > by propaganda. One can find most of what is still wrong in the world > 60 years on in this book, and the author's answer utterly disgraced > and destroyed. China, rather than being a socialist success, has > rather destroyed illusions about freedom and lack of State in > capitalism. > > My point here is not direct. I believe we do now have some kind of > almost objective review of what is going on in the world. It is this > that is continually being put off - almost the very idea that we can > have objective review (at least in approximation). It doesn't need to > rely on personal authority figures - these may well be part of the > blocks put on by the 'old enemies' - the notion things are so > difficult we need them blocking what can be made obvious. 'They' may > be quite happy as long as we are serfs, not necessarily theirs, but of > someone. My guess is that we need arguments in the realm of > simplexity to return to an honesty in which an individual acting for > the benefit of all is close enough to raise a glass to and not some > great leader. > > On 26 Oct, 07:50, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I rather like this guy and thanks for introducing him Orn. This > > didn't work for me, though it is important for something I want to > > write and can't find the words for. Essentially, 'will' tends to > > have > > operational definitions and I felt the paper left me wondering on the > > creation of 'conditions of existence'. I preferred some early work > > you recommended. He is worth reading. > > > Buddhist epistemology, ontology and philosophy, although in no way > > monolithic, do address such things [operational definitions & > > conditions of existence] Neil. And, you are exactly correct…the > > current paper was edited and selected from a longer talk for inclusion > > in a slick and popular journal with pretty pictures and poetry for the > > masses. One can easily see from the list of the other topics covered > > in the specific edition from which the current paper was extracted > > what a mixed bag the publication is. > > >http://www.mandalamagazine.org/2009/jan/default.asp > > > I have subscribed to it over the years and know the main editor and a > > few of the contributors. As such publications go, I recommend it. > > > http://www.mandalamagazine.org/ > > > And, at the risk of appearing to be an apologist, Alan is relatively > > young and merely has a fairly unique set of experiences to go with his > > erudite style. Listening to him lecture one finds a wide range of > > topics, levels of and methods of scientific, philosophical and > > theological presentations etc. One can imagine the wide mix of people > > attracted to his retreats! > > > His gift for languages coupled with years living with HHDL and > > monastic study allow him a rare access to and understanding of > > thousands of years of what for many of us would be esoteric texts. > > Couple this with his studies in psych and physics, for a Westerner, he > > is one of the very few to be able to clearly present and synthesize > > the many different schools of thought and science. I know of only two > > of his ‘elders’ alive today who might have greater insight into the > > lineage and tenets of Buddhism, Sanskrit etc. and neither has > > equivalent Western scientific credentials. Namely: > > > Robert Thurmanhttp://www.bobthurman.com/and > > > Jeffrey Hopkinshttp://www.snowlionpub.com/pages/hopkins.html > > > Both currently are more published than the younger Wallace is. In the > > long run, I expect Alan to ‘catch up’ with and possibly eclipse them. > > All three often translate for HHDL. > > > You might want to peruse a list of Wallace’s writings for a more > > attractive and less ‘popularized’ topic. > > >http://www.alanwallace.org/writings.htm > > > A local Institute for graduate studies in this area, although recently > > created, is well established…I used to study with and socialize with > > its founder on occasion. http://www.maitripa.org/ > > > Overall, you are welcome Neil. Other than the small self > > aggrandizement by association found above, my motivation in sharing > > what I have learned is rather Buddhist in nature – for the benefit of > > all - and is strictly not for profit. > > > On Oct 25, 9:37 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I rather like this guy and thanks for introducing him Orn. This > > > didn't work for me, though it is important for something I want to > > > write and can't find the words for. Essentially, 'will' tends to have > > > operational definitions and I felt the paper left me wondering on the > > > creation of 'conditions of existence'. I preferred some early work > > > you recommended. He is worth reading. > > > > On 25 Oct, 11:54, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > “…Each partner encourages and motivates the other into > > > > activities and goals they might not have otherwise pursued on their > > > > own. …” – DJ > > > > > Don, while just today, I had a similar thought, my guess is that the > > > > professionals on this list will make it clear that we have merely > > > > chosen our parents to ‘marry’ and continue the unfinished process of > > > > our youth. > > > > > On Oct 25, 4:32 am, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Bagginses don't go adventuring... > > > > > > it's considered disreputable behavior and generally frowned upon. > > > > > Unless one has a very powerful wizard kicking your butt out the > > > > > door... > > > > > > Come to think of it; all my life's big changes I was pretty much > > > > > dragged into kicking and screaming. Metaphorically speaking. All my > > > > > planned changes have been relatively methodical and boring. > > > > > > My current epiphany explains the usefulness of marriage in the success > > > > > of the family. Each partner encourages and motivates the other into > > > > > activities and goals they might not have otherwise pursued on their > > > > > own. Acting as each others own bullying wizard. Have we as a society > > > > > made it far too easy to raise ones kids on ones own? Ok, now I'm > > > > > descending into do do, Sorry. > > > > > > dj > > > > > > On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 4:03 AM, frantheman > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > There's a lot of interesting stuff here, Orn, imo, some very good > > > > > > observations. A few short comments: > > > > > > > One approach which I find useful is the question: "Freedom from > > > > > > what?" > > > > > > - and the implication, freedom for what? > > > > > > > Regrettably, Wallace occasionally wanders into the (false) dichotomy > > > > > > free/not-free, although I appreciate that it's difficult not to when > > > > > > trying to make arguments in this context. That said, his basic > > > > > > intent > > > > > > seems to be to go beyond this dialectic. This problem arises > > > > > > frequently in many presentations of Buddhist teaching when people > > > > > > work > > > > > > with the image of not-enlightened/enlightened - although I think > > > > > > that > > > > > > this has more to do with the difficulty of expressing some ideas in > > > > > > clear language/argument. > > > > > > > I find the ideas he develops from the concept of Vajrayana > > > > > > interesting. > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
