Hi Tuukka, Actually I agreed with your comment on the professor, I just did not want to get into the conversation. Everybody has their own little piece of knowledge. We cannot expect too much from anybody. Personally I do not like pasting quotes since it leaves the whole context of the quote out. If I were to paste just the word "wisdom" and attribute it so some great writer, would it mean anything to you? Of course not. Putting down a quote which comes from a book is the same thing. It is the same as the press in this country likes to do in providing soundbites which are supposed to represent an entire political philosophy. I suppose it is the modern way to do things, get quotes without thinking about them, and moving on.
Yes, we are in the same boat. All of us co-create each moment as it happens. We are all on the cutting edge of reality as it unfolds. It is teamwork, there is no reason why we cannot band together in such creativity. Wait! And here is a brand new moment once again that we are all going through together. Thank you, brother, for helping me out with this one too! Together we can, devided we cannot. Mark On 2/15/12, Tuukka Virtaperko <m...@tuukkavirtaperko.net> wrote: > Mark, Marsha, > I mean, we are in the same boat here. I think we all could be astonished > why the paper was so bad. There's no need to be judgemental. A professor > of philosophy even _trying_ to do something like this is a _good_ thing. > But it is astonishing why he made such a simple mistake. > > -Tuukka > > > > 15.2.2012 21:58, Tuukka Virtaperko kirjoitti: >> Mark, Marsha >> hmm. I can sometimes be too mean. But it was reasonable of Marsha to >> ask for something substantial. I don't yet have the thing I promised. >> I guess I don't sufficiently distance other people from me, and need >> to attack them in order to not feel hurt myself, when I perceive them >> as disappointing. Maybe I need to think about my behavior more. >> >> Anyway, I was annoyed by already taking into account that it's not >> Marsha's fault the paper was bad. And her defence of the paper... oh >> wait, she's defenceless, right? I guess I won't start this >> conversation then. I didn't mean to personally attack. I just tried to >> find some reason why she reacted in a way I could not understand. What >> I said may have been somehow difficult to stomach, but I did not say >> it in a way that was tailored to hurt. I perceived the tone as neutral. >> >> -Tuukka >> >> >> >> 6.2.2012 19:16, 118 kirjoitti: >>> Gee Tuukka, >>> You are so mean to Marsha :-). Can't you see she is defenseless? >>> Keep in mind that whatever you post will be seen as a personal attack >>> to some. Having said that, it can be interesting to stir up the >>> hornet's nest. >>> Cheers, >>> Mark >>> >>> On 2/6/12, Tuukka Virtaperko<m...@tuukkavirtaperko.net> wrote: >>>> Marsha, >>>> It is as if you were replying to a different message than I sent. Your >>>> response is hysteric, even though this is not quite personal. I get the >>>> feeling that you crave attention from me by seeming vulnerable and >>>> getting upset when nobody even challenged you. >>>> >>>> -Tuukka >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 6.2.2012 8:11, MarshaV kirjoitti: >>>>> Tuukka, >>>>> >>>>> There always will be some scholar that you can accuse me of being in >>>>> disagreement with. And there are many subtle differences between >>>>> schools >>>>> and branches of Buddhism and interpretations of Nagarjuna's many >>>>> works. >>>>> Do you think all scholars will agree on what RMP has said? Do you >>>>> think >>>>> all Jamesian scholars agree on what William James meant? No! >>>>> Voices-in-unison is not the way of scholarship? I bet you will find >>>>> scholars who disagree on what Aristotle meant, especially since his >>>>> original writing has never been discovered. - I read, I consider, >>>>> I test >>>>> and investigate ( I am conventionally speaking of course), I meditate, >>>>> and I draw my own conclusions based on my experience, and I leave >>>>> room for >>>>> change. >>>>> >>>>> So what is your point? And why should your opinion/interpretation of >>>>> Priest matter to me? What kind of academic credentials can you >>>>> produce >>>>> to validate your opinion that Priest is right, wrong, all of the >>>>> above or >>>>> none of the above??? And, btw, where's your rubbish? Do you have >>>>> anything a-b-s-o-l-u-t-e to present? If your point is to prove me >>>>> wrong, >>>>> than let me assure you, as one who understands truth to be >>>>> relative, I am >>>>> never absolutely right. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Marsha >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Feb 5, 2012, at 7:31 PM, Tuukka >>>>> Virtaperko<m...@tuukkavirtaperko.net> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> In addition, Priest ends up claiming, that according to orthodox >>>>>> Mahayana >>>>>> Buddhism, everything is//samvṛtisatya, and there is no >>>>>> paramārthasatya. >>>>>> So he denies the Two Truths Doctrine without even mentioning it, >>>>>> as if he >>>>>> were unaware of such a doctrine. >>>>>> >>>>>> -Tuukka >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 6.2.2012 2:22, Tuukka Virtaperko kirjoitti: >>>>>>> Marsha, all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> remember the paper by Graham Priest, called Structure of Emptiness? >>>>>>> Cite: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "S'u-nyata-, in the sense we are going to understand it here, is >>>>>>> simply >>>>>>> the doctrine that /every/ entity that exists has relational >>>>>>> existence. >>>>>>> There is no entity that has intrinsic existence. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I cannot think of any Western philosopher who has endorsed >>>>>>> exactly this >>>>>>> view, but it is orthodox in Maha-ya-na Buddhism. A canonical >>>>>>> defence of >>>>>>> the view was provided by Na-ga-rjuna, the second century Indian >>>>>>> philosopher, particularily in his text /Mu-lamadhyamakaka-rika-/. In >>>>>>> this text, Na-ga-rjuna goes through all the things that one might >>>>>>> think >>>>>>> to have self-existence, and argues that they do not. Many of the >>>>>>> arguments employed concern the kind of thing in question, such as >>>>>>> matter, time consciousness. But some of the arguments are quite >>>>>>> general. >>>>>>> Here is one such argument from Chapter 5 (or at least, my >>>>>>> interpretation >>>>>>> of it --- interpreting Na-ga-rjuna is always a sensitive issue). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Take an object that one might suppose to have self-existence. >>>>>>> Since the >>>>>>> argument is quite general, /anything/ will do, but for the sake of >>>>>>> illustration, suppose we take Aristotle. Aristotle had various >>>>>>> properties: having certain parents, being born in Stagrya, being >>>>>>> called >>>>>>> '???????????', and so on. Now, to be Aristotle is to be the >>>>>>> bearer of >>>>>>> those properties. Any entity which bore (related to) those >>>>>>> properties >>>>>>> would /be/ Aristotle. Aristotle, then, does not have >>>>>>> self-existence: to >>>>>>> be (identical to) Aristotle is to be related to those properties >>>>>>> in that >>>>>>> way." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That's just terrible rubbish. He hasn't apparently read >>>>>>> /Mu-lamadhyamakaka-rika-. /Na-ga-rjuna says: >>>>>>> / >>>>>>> /"If we cannot find an entity with an essence, that does not >>>>>>> prove the >>>>>>> non-existence of such entities. Some say that an entity that >>>>>>> changes is >>>>>>> a nonentity." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "To say "it is" is to be attached to essentialism. To say "it is >>>>>>> not" is >>>>>>> to lapse into nihilism. Therefore, judgments of "it is" or "it is >>>>>>> not" >>>>>>> are not made by the wise." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The author terribly misrepresents Na-ga-rjuna. I don't know why. >>>>>>> This is >>>>>>> so obvious, it's not about Buddhism anymore. It's just about >>>>>>> reading the >>>>>>> damn work you're writing about. Any academic should have done >>>>>>> better. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But the article was interesting, thank you. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -Tuukka >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> 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 >> >> 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
