p.s. Walter Kaufmann writes that if one reads Kant in his original German, his books are chocked full of contradictions.
On Apr 15, 2011, at 12:41 PM, MarshaV wrote: > > On Apr 15, 2011, at 11:58 AM, Arlo Bensinger wrote: > >> [Marsha] >> Saying "IT does anything" misrepresents. >> >> [Arlo] >> My point exactly. Saying "The MOQ speaks" (apart from a poetic narrative) >> misrepresents. Thanks. Or is this a case of now saying "The MOQ says" is >> okay, but "it says" is not? (Pirsig also uses the rhetoric "it says" in his >> narrative, btw.) > > Marsha: > It makes no difference to me. Either is fine with me. It seems trivial to > me the way you present it. > > > >> [Marsha] >> But I can say I am trying to move away from dualistic subject-object >> point-of-view towards an interconnectedness that conceptualization and >> language occludes. >> >> [Arlo] >> There is no doubt that pre-intellectual experience precedes "language", but >> don't confuse the enlightened abandonment of language with championing >> obfuscation. In other words, there is a time not to speak, but this is not >> the same as speaking incoherently. > > Marsha: > And don't confuse saying something coherently, with saying anything of value. > I do not feel a need to conform to a particular standard of what is > considered acceptable rhetoric by a language nerd. The convention of what is > acceptable and proper changes. Read Wittgensstein's 'Tractatus' and then > let's speak about coherency. How about Nietzsche's 'Thus Spoke Zarathustra'? > I'm not buying your line of baloney. > > >> [Marsha] >> He is very skillful in considering the listener. But he is a Boddhisatva, >> so his ultimate intention is to work towards the enlightenment of all >> sentient beings. I think that enlightenment is to achieve ultimate >> non-dualistic insight and wisdom >> >> [Arlo] >> And he achieves this by brilliant clarity in his words, not being confusing >> and incoherent. While I am sure he would agree that words ultimately are >> analogies to describe a pre-intellectual experience, when he chooses his >> words he does so with elegant precision and clarity. >> >> Again, there is a difference between an artful mastery of language, and a >> befuddled incoherence. > > > Marsha: > Without knowing the topic, or the audience, your comments are meaningless. > It is one thing to speak to a group of people on the Four Noble Truths, and > another to discuss Nagarjuna's no-thesis view, or why the Buddha never > uttered a word, or the intricacies of the two-truth debate between Tsongkhapa > and Gorampa. You are sounding naive. > > > > > > ___ > > > 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/md/archives.html ___ 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/md/archives.html
