"When X purports (through a medium of appearance) to exist in manner F,
to person P, X-as-F is illusory when X does not really exist in manner F."
"She explains "Most generally, an illusion involves a conflict between
appearance and reality. Something, X, appears to be the case, but there is
something about X that does not reflect reality; it MISLEADS the person to whom
it appears. In other words, X PURPORTS, through the appearance, to exist in a
particular manner, when X does NOT REALLY exist in the purported manner."
(Albahari, Miri, 'Analytical Buddhism: The Two-tiered Illusion of Self '
p.122)
Ron:
X never exists in manner F.
not this not that
..
On Sep 7, 2011, at 6:12 AM, MarshaV wrote:
>
> On Sep 7, 2011, at 1:19 AM, Ham Priday wrote:
>
>>
>> Dear Marsha --
>>
>> On Tuesday, 9/06/11 at 5:14 PM, "MarshaV" <val...@att.net> wrote.
>>
>>> Hello Ham,
>>>
>>> Can you provide proofs for your premises?
>>>
>>> Citing "classical philosophy" is an argument from authority.
>>> Is there a proof for the premise, 'ex nihilo nihil fit'? Or is it
>>> true because the Ancient Greeks thought so?
>>
>> Unfortunately, the "proofs" you're demanding are non-existent. Unlike the
>> empirical conclusions of Science, philosophical theories are unprovable.
>> That's largely because what we call "proof" is confirmed by empirical
>> evidence, and ultimate reality is not empirical. It's also because were we
>> able to prove a metaphysical theory, it would mean that we had possession of
>> absolute truth And humans cannot have absolute truth without losing their
>> freedom as agents of Value. .
>>
>>> Please explain your "empirical precept for 'first cause'"?
>>
>> You already know it, Marsha. Since you were a toddler, you learned (or were
>> taught) that every occurrence is the consequence of some previous event or
>> action. We live in a world of cause-and-effect where "conventional logic"
>> tells us that there is no such thing as spontaneous creation. Scientists
>> and philosophers have long pondered the paradoxical question as to how this
>> progression of events began. The prevailing view of Science is that it all
>> started with a cataclysmic Bang some 14 billion years ago. But since energy
>> and mass were required to ignite this "First Cause", some cosmologists have
>> opted for a "steady-state" universe with no beginning.
>>
>> Philosophers, on the other hand, have reasoned that time and space are not
>> intrinsic to the universe, suggesting that the progression itself is an
>> experiential illusion and that evolution is a "modality" of the Creator or
>> Source rather than a serial process. This, of course, contradicts the
>> causal precept of empiricism which we all grow up with. But even from the
>> empirical perspective, things do not come into being by their own power.
>> And, if logic has any philosophical meaning, that necessitates an uncreated
>> Source.
>>
>>> With all respect to Sir Doktor Professor Heidegger, where is your proof for
>>> the metaphysical adaptation of Heidegger's question?
>>
>> Again, while there is no proof, you know this intuitively. Why is there
>> being instead of nothing? Being IS; everything exists. If there were no
>> being there would be no Marsha to ask the question. But "beingness" is
>> always finite, and Heidegger went on to discuss finitude (existence) as a
>> "negation" of the Absolute. This concept was new to philosophy but not to
>> human thought. Eckhart in the 14th century taught that the Creator "denies
>> that otherness is anything but itself." The logical equivalent of this
>> denial was formulated as "not anything other than" by Nicholas Cusa a
>> century later. It is my theory that, in the metaphysical sense, denial is a
>> negation of nothingness to actualize an experienced otherness.
>>
>> In closing, I'd like to stress one additional point that applies to a number
>> of MD participants who seem to be treating reality as a myth, which is
>> nihilism carried to an extreme. For example, Ron recently aserted:
>>
>>> Experience is illusion. Therefore all wisdom is illusional.
>>> Quality is illusion, every last bit.
>>
>> Such pronouncements are not only troubling, they make a mockery of Pirsig's
>> thesis. You may call existence an illusion, just as you call the self an
>> illusion. But you can not escape the fact that this "illusion" is your
>> reality.
>
>
> Hello Ham,
>
> Ron is clinging to a silly, little boy's notion of illusion for his own
> purposes. Here's Ms. Albahari's short, but formal definition:
>
> "When X purports (through a medium of appearance) to exist in manner F,
> to person P, X-as-F is illusory when X does not really exist in manner
>F."
>
> She explains "Most generally, an illusion involves a conflict between
> appearance and reality. Something, X, appears to be the case, but there is
> something about X that does not reflect reality' it MISLEADS the person to
> whom it appears. In other words, X PURPORTS, through the appearance, to
> exist in a particular manner, than X does NOT REALLY exist in the purported
> manner."
>
>
> 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/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
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
