[Fis] _ Fwd: Vol 25, #32, Nature of Self

[steven bindeman]

I hope the following passage I’ve written on Nagarjuna will be of use for this 
discussion on the nature of self. The passage is from a manuscript I’ve just 
completed on silence and postmodernism.

Nagarjuna’s thinking is deeply conversant with silence and with the use of 
paradox as well. For him, contradictory things are never “either/or,” but are 
always “both/and.” Refusing to choose between opposing metaphysical problems, 
he would recommend responding through silence instead. For an example of his 
reductive reasoning process, consider the following: 

Whatever is dependently co-arisen
That is explained to be emptiness.
That, being a dependent designation,
Is itself the middle way.

Something that is not dependently arisen
Such a thing does not exist.
Therefore a nonempty thing
Does not exist.

Nagarjuna is criticizing the common paradoxical occurrence that when we 
attribute abstract concepts (“something that does not dependently exist”) like 
emptiness to the status of “reality” (like we do with the Platonic forms), then 
they seem to be applicable to everything, while on the other hand when we 
emphasize instead the individual uniqueness and particularity of any one thing 
(“whatever is dependently co-arisen”), this emphasis makes it impossible to  
categorize its likeness with other things. Nagarjuna’s point is that the 
abstract concept of emptiness and the concrete nature of any particular empty 
thing are in fact codependent. He calls this codependency “Conditioned 
Arising.” His “middle way” resolves the paradox by viewing neither the abstract 
idea nor the concrete thing as having a separate reality — both instead are 
characterized as “‘thought constructions’ founded on experience.’ As such, they 
are not absolutely real or absolutely unreal. …This middle path could thus be 
adopted in understanding all forms of experience, whether they be linguistic, 
social, political, moral, or religious.”

Another way of approaching an understanding of the middle way has to do with 
recognizing it as constituting a resolution of the identity/difference problem. 
 According to standard Buddhist doctrine the most dangerous false view possible 
is the belief in a permanent, independent self (also commonly referred to as 
the concept of identity). This notion of self is symptomatic of our deepest 
fears, concerning things like death and the possibility of our personal 
nonexistence. The concept of difference, which is the other side of the 
problem, is the belief that nothing is real; it also asserts the absence of all 
identities. This position would lead to the most mundane things becoming 
unintelligible. Nagarjuna’s solution to this problem is his assertion that 
neither identity nor difference is real. Both notions, when seen properly, are 
“empty” of self-essence. They can exist only together and not separately. 
Nagarjuna’s way of resolving this problem, by pointing to the interdependency 
of identity and difference, is remarkably similar to the one proposed by 
Merleau-Ponty many years later.

Steve Bindeman

___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] Fwd: Vol 25, #32, Nature of Self

[Stanley N Salthe]

Lou, Alex -- Here is another use of set theoretical brackets (the
subsumption hierarchy in evolution):  {  ? -> {physical world -> {material
world -> {biological world -> {social world }

STAN

On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 2:14 AM, Louis H Kauffman  wrote:

> On Pedro’s recommendation, I am forwarding this exchange to the list.
> Best,
> Lou
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> *From: *Louis H Kauffman 
> *Subject: **Re: Vol 25, #32, Nature of Self*
> *Date: *April 29, 2016 at 12:12:26 PM EDT
> *To: *Alex Hankey 
> *Cc: *"Pedro C. Marijuan" 
>
> Dear Alex,
> In set theory, the empty set can be regarded as ‘framing nothing’.
> Thus it is denoted by an empty container {  }.
> The properties of the container are not relevant, only that ‘it’ manages
> the act of containment.
> “We therefore take the form of distinction for the form.”
> From there, one generates all the multiplicities in mathematics by further
> acts of framing.
> {  }
> { { } }
> { { }, { { } } }
> ad infinitum.
> If we said this in LOF it would be essentially the same, but parsimonious
> in that the comma as an extra distinction would not be needed.
> If A is a set, then {A} is another set obtained by the act of framing. We
> see it all as ‘framing nothing’ when the sets are traced back to their
> empty origins as in
> the layers of an onion. Some layering might have to be traced back forever
> alas as in {…}. This is why set theorists are not happy to have
> sets that are members of themselves at the foundation. Nevertheless, in
> order to have language at all, self-reference is necessary. In LOF the mark
> < > is seen to be a distinction and to refer to a distinction and so refers
> to itself.
> At that point one realizes that in the form, the mark and the reader or
> writer or observer are identical. Tat tvam asi.
> Best,
> Lou
>
> On Apr 29, 2016, at 5:47 AM, Alex Hankey  wrote:
>
> RE 1 Louis Kauffman: Emptiness is form and form is emptiness. The form we
> take to exist arises from framing nothing.
>
> RE 2: The objects of our thought and perception are so laden with the
> names and symbols that have been shifted to them, that their ?original
> nature? is nearly invisible.
>
> ME 1: Many philosophers of the East, such as Nagarjuna and Adishankara
> agree that when one realizes that the real 'Self' has no form (and no
> history of change) that this frees the embodied soul from being trapped in
> forms that get reincarnated in time. It is the Ultimate Liberating
> Realization!
>
> The Maharishi International University mathematician, Michael Weinless,
> formerly an Asst Prof at Harvard, was correspondingly fond of RusselL's
> distinction between ϕ and [ϕ].
>
> Is this the same as what you are referring to, the 'framing of nothing'?
>
> ME(2): I suspect that the cognitions of a fully enlightened person is
> acutely aware of the additional nonsense that has surrounded the original
> simplicity in such cases.
>
> E.G. In the webinar, I became acutely aware of many layers of academic
> comment / prejudice etc. that surround almost every seemingly innocent
> discussion question.
>
> --
> Alex Hankey M.A. (Cantab.) PhD (M.I.T.)
> Distinguished Professor of Yoga and Physical Science,
> SVYASA, Eknath Bhavan, 19 Gavipuram Circle
> Bangalore 560019, Karnataka, India
> Mobile (Intn'l): +44 7710 534195
> Mobile (India) +91 900 800 8789
> 
>
> 2015 JPBMB Special Issue on Integral Biomathics: Life Sciences,
> Mathematics and Phenomenological Philosophy
> 
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Fis mailing list
> Fis@listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>
>
___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis