Hi Ant/Platt Pretty much agree with Ant. We should not ask if something is real or an illusion. Rather we should ask what sort of real is it?
Before there was life on earth a glass of water was a real future possibility. A glass of water in my mind is a real memory. A glass of water in the mind of the woman who invented the drinking glass is a real good original idea yet to be actualised. An empty glass near a tap is a real potential glass of water. A glass of water that can be drunk or spilt or thrown has a number of real practical uses. A glass of water in another room is real but is beyond my current experience. The illusion of a glass of water for a thirsty woman is a real illusion of a glass of water, desirable, but not drinkable for it is a real illusion The word illusion largely means something you can see but can't touch. Is Mr Bush on my TV the real Mr Bush or an illusion of him? Can my TV create Mr Bush's image in my lounge? Is information unreal because you cannot touch it? Don't think so when the very word 'artificial' tells us that ideas have very real powers. David M ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ant McWatt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 12:31 PM Subject: [MD] subject / object logic > 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. > > 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. > > Best wishes, > > Anthony > > > . > > _________________________________________________________________ > The next generation of Hotmail is here! http://www.newhotmail.co.uk > > 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/ > 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/
