No, Orn, you and me together doesn't make us the goddess of justice, that's right. Keep an eye on you blood pressure. ;)
On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 3:57 AM, ornamentalmind <[email protected]>wrote: > Gabby…, I fear you do not understand my motivation nor even what I was > doing. > > We can both claim ‘blindness’ in the other forever. The result of such > attacks is that nothing rational is communicated… it just turns into > the blind leading/shouting at the blind. This is exactly why we > disallow Ad Hominem (http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/ > arguments.html#hominem ) arguments. > http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye/web/posting-guidelines > > In case it is important to anyone at all, the link was to the source > of my words about: > > “…distinction between differing philosophies is ‘reasonable to make’. > “ > > This is one of our standards…to provide our sources. Neil did. I did. > > > On May 6, 6:46 am, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > > There it is back again. You didn't get anything I tried to bring across. > > Tell me, Orn, what are you to possess the necessary sense of blindness > that > > Neil seems to be lacking? > > > > You could have posted a wiki link on Geronimo ( > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geronimo) to exemplify how well embraced > > eastern and western cultures can live across times in perfect innocence > > without any scepticism. > > > > And what did you do? You posted a wiki link to the name of the person > whose > > thoughts had been introduced to the discussion by Neil. Unbelievable. > Your > > embracing the world must indeed feel impossible to describe. > > > > On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 1:45 AM, ornamentalmind > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As to there being ‘no view’, in a sense this is correct. Having ‘no > > > position’ is one of the principles of consciousness…even though as > > > this list proves, we all are posters for holding firm to positions! > > > > > The thing with ‘no position/view’ is that this doesn’t imply the lack > > > of awareness nor even the actual lack of discrimination. It is a > > > unique state that embraces everything and everyone all at once… > > > something quite a bit easier to imply than to describe! > > > > > Of course even the philosopher Senge (Gorampa) concluded that a > > > distinction between differing philosophies is ‘reasonable to make’. > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorampa > > > > > The apparent difference between east/west philosophy needn’t be as > > > wide as many make it. Yes Neil, it would be nice if Rene’s skepticism > > > as being a necessary stop on the road. However, as far as I can tell, > > > it is but an aborted short trip in the opposite direction. > > > > > And, yes, ‘all kinds of arguments can always be made’. > > > > > Welcome old friend! > > > > > On May 5, 3:56 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > One might go 'Gorampa' on this. Gorampa's particular brand of > Madhyamaka > > > > philosophy is defined by his understanding of the relationship > between > > > the > > > > two truths, the use of negation, the role of logic, and proper > methods of > > > > philosophical argumentation. His work was banned, one reason I've > been > > > > looking. .His views regarding the two truths and negation inform a > > > process > > > > whereby the Mādhyamika begins with logic and analysis, but ends in a > > > state > > > > of nonconceptuality, Gorampa contends that there can be no > differences > > > > between Mādhyamikas with respect to their final view. There cannot be > > > > different types of nonconceptuality; freedom from conceptual > constructs > > > is > > > > freedom from conceptual constructs. The final, ultimate view is > > > actually > > > > no view at all. > > > > > > This might seem as much use as as chocolate teapot. I suspect there > is > > > some > > > > way for us to commune non-conceptually long before any 'guru state' > is > > > > achieved and that we need this for knowledge that can shift us from > the > > > > current interregnum. One might take Descartes as meaning one has to > > > doubt > > > > all to arrive at anything of value, and I rather like the notion that > > > this > > > > is non-conceptual. I like the sway of these Indian and Tibetan > > > arguments, > > > > yet think they serve to remind us how much we exclude from our > arguments > > > > in forgetting what the self does in argument, rushing us to > 'decision', > > > > forgetting all kinds of argument can always be made (Pyrhho in > western > > > > stuff). >
