[MD] Platt and Arlo

[Scott Roberts]

Paul, Platt, and Arlo, (Case mentioned),

Here is a classic case of disagreement arising from not working through the 
Buddhist tetralemma. In conventional truth, one says "the self is permanent 
(or has 'inherent self-existence')". The article says "one cannot say that 
the self is permanent", which is the first-level understanding of the 
Buddhist two truths doctrine (and is also the MOQ's understanding). But the 
second horn of the tetralemma says "one cannot say that the self is 
impermanent". Now why is that? Well, consider the metaphor of the self as a 
whirlpool. It is that, but it is also awareness of itself as a whirlpool. It 
transcends its whirlpool-ness. Now a first-level Buddhist, and a 
materialist, will try to subsume this awareness as an illusion -- just more 
whirlpooling (for example, see Arlo's, and Pirsig's, account of the 'me' as 
a product of collective consciousness). The trouble with this is this 
subsumption of awareness doesn't work, because if all were in fact 
impermanence, there just wouldn't be any awareness (this is what I am 
arguing with Case about). So now why are we not back at the conventional 
truth? Because if one searches for this awareness of the self's 
whirlpoolness all one finds is more whirlpool.

On to the third horn: "one cannot the self is both permanent and 
impermanent". Well, one can say it, but then one has the trouble of *how* it 
can be both. How can one thing (the self) be permanent *and* impermanent? 
Well, it can't, if one assumes Aristotelian logic. Enter the logic of 
contradictory identity. The self's permanence is not other than its 
impermanence, and its impermanence is not other than its permanence. But to 
make some sort of sense of that last sentence one must bring in a third 
term, in this case, awareness. What is permanent is the awareness of 
impermanence, but that "permanent awareness" is always changing.

On to the fourth horn: "one cannot say the self is neither permanent nor 
impermanent". Again, one can say it, but that just amounts to wanting to 
drop the discussion altogether. This is the pragmatist's response. And of 
course the problem here is that if we do drop the discussion we have nothing 
to say about awareness (or value or the self). So what this means in 
practice is that one will just revert to one of the first two positions. 
Hence a materialist would prefer to just not think about awareness, because 
there is no explanation for it in his or her worldview. And the 
"individualist" would prefer to just not think about the undecidable state 
of the individual. Which is to say that ignoring the fourth horn of the 
tetralemma is a way to avoid having one's beliefs challenged.

- Scott

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Paul Turner" <paul at turnerbc.co.uk>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2005 7:39 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] Platt and Arlo


Platt,

<resent - typo corrected>

>The metaphor in the article about Buddhist conditionality is much like
>Arlo's "individuals are raindrops" metaphor. The problem I have with
>both is the not-so-subtle implication that individual humans have the
>same value status as inorganic raindrops and ocean vortexes.

Paul:  I don't think the metaphor should be taken this literally i.e., I
don't think he is saying that humans are literally as meaningful as
whirlpools of water.

>" In order to get by from day to day,
>to get on with the apparently urgent business of survival, we narrow
>the scope of our vision to more manageable proportions." APPARENTLY
>urgent business of survival? Clearly the author doesn't consider
>survival, and thus worth of the individual, of great importance in the
>big scheme of things.

Paul:  I think that's a fair statement given the excerpt I quoted although
you might want to read more of the article to see if this is put in context,
but I'm not sure.  When someone says that there is something more important
than one's own survival you wonder if they would put their money where their
mouth is, so to speak.  There have been countless historical examples where
this has been the case though and these people are often the revered
precursors of change.

>If this be a true reflection of the Buddhist hierarchy of values, it
>explains why in the East human life is held in such low esteem, and why
>millions can be murdered by Mao, Pol Pot and others with nary a twinge
>of conscience. If humans are looked upon as little whirlpools, who
>cares if a few million disappear without a trace?

Paul:  Perhaps.  But on the other hand, from this perspective, to kill
others is to kill yourself, metaphorically speaking.

>Thankfully, this attitude has been rejected by the West where
>individual rights take top billing.

Paul:  I think that needs qualifying.  Only some rights take top billing.
For example, one doesn't have the individual right to steal, rape, kill,
embezzle etc.

Regards

Paul


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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/