Hi Paul, On Jun 17, 2013, at 10:09 AM, Paul Turner <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Marsha, > >> Recognizing a mirage for what it is is not "relativism, a nihilism and an >>>> anti-intellectualism." Chasing after some half-baked definition of >>>> truth is clinging to the last shreds of one's need for certainty. >>>> Who needs it? >>> >>> The first problem with referring to static quality as a "mirage" is that >>> by its very definition it immediately elevates the appearance-reality >>> distinction to the top of the hierarchy and drops static quality into the >>> "appearance" category. >> >> The use of the term 'mirage' is of course an analogy and doesn't elevate >> anything. Perhaps you give the appearance-reality problem too much >> credence. > > Perhaps I do but a mirage is defined as something which appears to be one > thing but is really something else, right? So you are saying that static > quality is like something which appears to be one thing but is really > something else. So I have to ask - in what respect does it appear to be > something while being really something else. And as far as that analogy > goes, what is it that it appears to be and what is it really? It is not that the mirage does not exist. A mirage appears to have substance, but upon close inspection it does not. >>> Either Dynamic Quality or something else must then >>> take its place in the "reality" category and we just join the long list of >>> philosophers who have had a stab at assigning this or that to these >>> supposedly fundamental categories. >> >> You sound like there is a rejecting of static patterns in my statement, >> and there is not. > > OK, if that's the case, then good. I agree. :-) >>> I really see the MOQ as an attempt to >>> avoid that while still remaining a viable philosophy. >> >> Viable? What would be your standard for viability? > > It's difficult to be very precise and exhaustive about, Marsha, but I'm > thinking something like - providing explanations of sufficient clarity, > credibility, applicability, precision, elegance etc. (in other words, > intellectual quality) to support widespread acceptance and use. First of > all in academic communities and eventually into wider society. Have you presented your paper to the academy? Are you planning to? > Are you genuinely interested in my answer, though, or just setting me > up for a trap? ? > I feel like if we were in a room you would hit me with a stick to "snap me > out of it!" I could play with this sentence. >> The second problem is that by dismissing one element of its key >> explanatory >>> relationship as an illusion it makes the MOQ (particularly what I call >>> context (2)) a bit of a waste of time. >> >> There is no dismissal, no rejection. There is full embracing static >> patterns. > > OK, I think saying that static patterns are mirages, or even just "like > mirages," doesn't immediately lend itself in support of that. However, in > a philosophy forum I believe you have the right to use words outside of > their common understanding as long as you carefully explain your "unusual" > use, which you are trying to do, with quotes below in support. Thanks for that. >>> However, recognising static quality (the mythos) for what it is is the >>> value of context (1). I just wouldn't call it a mirage, for the reasons >>> above if nothing else. Also, it just strikes me as a bit "Dummies Guide >>> to Buddhism" which is odd given that I'm sure you've read some >>> Nagarjuna? >> >> The "Dummies Guide" reference is cute. - I've read a number of different >> texts by Nagarjuna, and there should be nothing odd about my accepting a >> static pattern as a mirage. I'm sure you probably read Jay Garfield's >> translation/interpretation of the MMK. While he's not the Buddha or >> Nagarjuna, he might illuminate the use of mirage: > > I'm glad you saw the humour there but I've stopped laughing and now I feel > like the Dummie because Nagarjuna is indeed translated as using "mirage" in > MMK. I do like Jay Garfield. I've only read a couple of essays and his > analysis of the MMK. I haven't read the book you quote from below. > > >> "Among the many similes for conventional truth that litter Madhyamaka >> texts, the most fruitful is that of the mirage. Conventional truth is >> false, Candrakirti tells us, because it is deceptive. Candrakirti spells >> this out in terms of a mirage. A mirage appears to be water, but is in fact >> empty of water—it is deceptive, and in that sense, a false appearance. On >> the other hand, a mirage is not nothing: it is a real mirage, just not real >> water. >> >> "The analogy must be spelled out with care to avoid the extreme of >> nihilism. A mirage appears to be water, but is only a mirage; the >> inexperienced highway traveler mistakes it for water, and for him it is >> deceptive, a false appearance of water; the experienced traveler sees it >> for what it is—a real mirage, empty of water. Just so, conventional >> phenomena appear to ordinary, deluded beings to be inherently existent, >> whereas in fact they are merely conventionally real, empty of that inherent >> existence; to the åryas, on the other hand, they appear to be merely >> conventionally true, hence to be empty. For us, they are deceptive, false >> appearances; for them, they are simply real conventional truths. >> >> "We can update the analogy to make the point more plainly. Imagine three >> travelers along a hot desert highway. Alice is an experienced desert >> traveler; Bill is a neophyte; Charlie is wearing polarizing sunglasses. >> Bill points to a mirage up ahead and warns against a puddle on the road; >> Alice sees the mirage as a mirage and assures him that there is no danger. >> Charlie sees nothing at all, and wonders what they are talking about. If >> the mirage were entirely false—if there were no truth about it at all, >> Charlie would be the most authoritative of the three (and Buddhas would >> know nothing of the real world). But that is wrong. Just as Bill is >> deceived in believing that there is water on the road, Charlie is incapable >> of seeing the mirage at all, and so fails to know what Alice knows—that >> there is a real mirage on the road, which appears to some to be water, but >> which is not. There is a truth about the mirage, despite the fact that it >> is deceptive, and Alice is authoritative with respect to it precisely >> because she sees it as it is, not as it appears to the uninitiated." >> >> (Garfield, Jay L., 'MOONSHADOWS: Taking Conventional Truth >> Seriously', pp. 29-30) > > I'd need to read this a few times to try out different interpretations with > respect to the MOQ. My initial reading is that Alice is seen as > authoritative because she sees "static patterns" as "real illusions." I > don't know, the language just seems so unnecessarily tricksy. How would > you translate that last paragraph into MOQ terms? Up to a point, dmb seemed to make sense of it. >> I advocate a middle way between the extremes of such things as the >>> "illusion" and "certainty" you dichotomise above and the two contexts I >>> discern in the MOQ offer a practical way to implement the middle way >>> philosophically. >> >> I am not interested in truth, so there is no dichotomization. > > > You suggested that the alternative to your mirage analogy was clinging to > certainty but now seem to say that.....well, I don't know actually, that > you didn't mean it? That was my poor presentation. I didn't mean to juxtapose the two statements as extremes. I should have left it at stating that recognizing a mirage for what it is is not "relativism, a nihilism and an anti-intellectualism." > Should I ignore anything you say because you have no > interest in whether it is true (by any definition) or not? That's not for me to decide. > I'm being genuine here. Me too. Ignore me if you like. > You will know from your reading that Pirsig translates true > as "having high intellectual quality" so are you not interested in whether > your words are of high intellectual quality? "... the good to which truth is subordinate is intellectual and Dynamic Quality ..." The good is good enough for me. I can be concerned with presenting the best explanation I can without worrying about truth. Is it necessary to have the intellectual level proclaim the intellectual level to be truth? It's not necessary in my book of life. > If not, are you interested in > whether your words have any quality, i.e., whether they even make sense? This is a rhetorical question, yes? > I'm sure you are, I'm just trying to get a feel for how to talk to you > without getting hit by a stick. I have a cane with a raven handle. Would I hit you with it? I don't know. >> Anyway, I enjoyed reading your paper and will read it again, I'm sure. I >> know it represents a lot of care and work. > Thanks. > > Paul Thank you. 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
