----- Original Message ----- From: "Krimel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 11:44 AM Subject: Re: [MD] Tit's
[Marsha] I am not even close to being able to properly explain any of this emptiness concept to you. But I'd like to try one little aspect. A thing that would inherently exist (like a thing-in-itself) would be an entity that would not depend on anything or not be subject to change of any kind. (Which leads to Ron's post on illusion and reminds me of RMP's crystallization experience.) But I'm not sure that is your understanding of a thing-in-itself. Anyway, to say more than that makes no sense because of my limited understanding and limited skill at explaining, and your lack of curiosity to read beyond Wikipedia. [Krimel] As to TiTs what you describe above is not at all what I have in mind. What you describe sounds more like a thing "unto" itself. Ham might find affinity with that but my view of TITs is far more pedestrian. I hope I have made it clear that I am no expert on Kant but as I see it, TiTs are everything every where. The computer I am typing on exists in my head as a pattern of associations. It's color, its texture, the heat from the processor are patterns of experience in my head. They are what I know about the computer. But the computer is also a TiI (Thing in Itself) independent of my perception of it. My perception is limited by sensitivity of my sensory systems, the fidelity of my memory and my history with this and similar objects. My experience of this computer is mediated by my senses and perception. The computer as a TiI is not available to me in unmediated form. I think the concept of illusion as Ron framed it is indeed useful because it helps to remind us that our perception and understanding of things, however comforting we find them, are changeable. They can be radically reformed and restructured in other ways. This is, as you point out, a lot like Pirsig's crystallization experience. It is no secret that I am not mystically inclined but I have had experiences of this kind several times and they have profoundly effected me. The effect of having ones conceptual continuity shaken and radically restructured into something more profound and beautiful is simply marvelous. What I take from such experiences is the conviction that lurking behind or beneath my present understanding is the possibility of even more profound restructuring to come. I get the feeling that you find value in the notion of no structure at all. But I think that even Buddhists would claim that that is ultimately just another way of structuring things. Where you see value in emptiness I see value in flexibility. My hope is for a structure of thought that is organic enough to grow and adapt and include more phenomena and as Ian would say connect more dots. The problem that Buddhism addresses, as I understand it, is not so much having a structure as clinging to a structure. After all isn't that the problem Nagarjuna was addressing? Isn't it supposed to be the middle way between those who argued for abandonment of the mundane world to seek union with an otherworldly divine experience and those who said that divine experience is equally to be found in the everyday world of sweat and bone? At least that's what I got from the Sparknotes...
A thing-in-itself (inherently existing object) would be an entity that has an existence independent of thoughts and perceptions, an entity that exists from its own side. Both Buddhism and the MOQ deny such an entity. Buddhism says that entities are empty of inherent existence. I surmise that the idea of a pattern is opposed to the idea of an inherently existing entity. That things appear to have an independent existence would be illusion. That we think they have an independent existence is the source of all suffering. That the world appears to function like things independently exist is its conventional operating procedure. Not to understand the two different modes of existing is ignorance. It is not that I value the notion of no structure, it is that I value existing closer to the truth. As I see it that means the world is built on conceptions.. Maybe shared, patterned conceptions, but conceptions none-the-less. The Middle Way, as I understand it, is between thinking objects are exactly as they appear (reificationists) and thinking there is no bases for anything at all (nihilists). I could sooo mess this up, and I really do not want to do that, if I haven't already. I'll stop now. Marsha 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/
