> Quoting Platt to Arlo September 20th :
>
> >[Platt had initially made this moronic statement]
> >
> >Both real AND illusory, like my cat is also my dog. That makes perfect
> >sense. I guess in your ivory tower, words are meaningless.
> >
> >[Arlo had pointed out the stupidity of such a ridiculous statement that
> >panders to typical right-wing bullshit about the dreaded academy]
> >
> >The typical, expected distortions, followed by another boring cliche
> >assault on the academy. Talk about "ho hum".
> >
> >[Platt responds]
> >Avoiding the issue as usual by throwing mud.
> >
> >[Arlo]
> >Tell me what "issue" I am avoiding? Your initial comment above, as I point
> >out, is simply moronic rhetoric.
>
> [Platt]
>
> Explain how something can be both real and illusory at the same time.
> I'm waiting.
>
> Ant McWatt comments:
>
> Platt,
>
> I think the fundamental problem here is assigning ontological equivalence of
> static entities with Dynamic Quality. Consequently, the either/or dichtomy
> of asking whether a static entity is real or illusory is a ham fisted way to
> deal with such a question and is presumably the reason why Buddhist
> philosophers invented the more subtle four pronged tetralemma to better
> handle such questions.
Sorry Ant. I don't understand. I think you are saying that logic (the law
of identity, A is A) cannot describe reality completely. Something is
always left out. At least that's how interpret the four-pronged tetralemma.
The missing element then, Dynamic Quality, which cannot be defined, is thus
real but illusory simultaneously. But, I could be wrong..
> In some sense to ask if my pet dog is real or an illusion is as problematic
> logically as asking if my pet dog has a Buddha nature. In other words,
> maybe the problem lies in asking a question that is essentially nonsensical
> in the first place and, as such, requires framing in a different way.
Does essentially "nonsensical" mean essentially "nonlogical?" It seems to
me that any question assumes a logical context. Questions like, "How
brillig were the slithy toves?" or "Have you ever climbed the mountains of
Holland?" would be nonsensical. So when you say "In some sense . . ." I
have a problem identifying what sense you are referring to.
To my mind the MOQ, given its assumptions, is eminently logical. Pirsig
says as much. "We're at last dealing with morals on the basis of reason."
(Lila, 13). So if I'm having trouble understanding the role in the MOQ of
Buddhism which largely rejects logic as relevant to reality, perhaps at
least you can understand my puzzlement.
Thanks for thoughts.
Regards,
Platt
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
