[MD] East meets West: the clarifing effort of the MoQ

[Heather Perella]

    [Case]
> TITs = Things in Themselves or the objects of
perception.

     Thank you.

     This book I'm reading now, by Masao Abe is very
good.  Here's more Kant, and also, where Abe notices
the distinctions between Aristotle, Kant, Nietzsche,
Heidegger, and Zen.  Quotes as follows:

     "Kant clearly recognized this blind-spot which
ran through Aristotle's metaphysics of 'Being' and
through all metaphysics subsequent to Aristotle."  
     This blind spot here is 'Being' has been regarded
as "...'thought thinking itself' was still thought in
some way," thus 'Being', "was regarded as an object of
thought."  
     Aristotle's 'Being' was to get away from the
dualities of thinking, but couldn't escape it, thus, a
blind spot that Kant noticed.

     Thus Kant's "...doctrine in which thing-in-itself
[Ah, the TIT's you mention Case] was said to be
unattainable by theoretical reason.  Kant's so-called
antinomies of pure reason exposed the self-bind which
substantive thinking [Aristotle's 'Being']
unconsciously harboured in the area of metaphysics. 
Through his critique, Kant thus shifted the ground of
the possibility of metaphysics from substantive
(theoretical) thinking to Subjective (practical)
thinking.  As far as metaphysics was concerned,
thought linked to 'being' was severed and thought
linked to the Subjective 'Ought' (Sollen) was taken
up... But it may be thought that Kant did not
necessarily realize the self-bind and the blind-spot
which 'thinking itself' possesses.  At the least, he
may have thought that he could avoid the self-bind and
blind-spot by thoroughly purifying thinking to the
standpoint of pure reason - indeed, of Subjective pure
reason."
     "In Western thought, the first philosopher who
clearly realized the cul-de-sac of thinking itself
would seem to have been Nietzsche.  This was hardly
unconnected with the fact that Nietzsche was the first
philosopher in Western intellectual history to grasp
'non-being' in a positive sense, i.e., in the form of
an active nihilism."
     "Heidegger then in a sense brought Nietzsche's
position to its final conclusion... Heidegger tried to
ask the meaning of 'Being' itself which is disclosed
by passing beyond Aristotelian 'Being' to its root
source through the realization of 'nothingness'.  At
the same time, however, he did not depart from
thinking itself, and tried to the last to stay in a
kind of thinking... To that extent he must be said
still to differ from Zen which is grounded on
Non-thinking.  Indeed, it would seem that Heidegger's
intention was rather to open up a new path of thinking
following the traditional course of Western
metaphysics without departing from the standpoint of
thinking and to make the forgotten 'Being' present
itself truly as 'Being' as such."
     "Zen is grounded in Non-thinking which is not
shackled by either thinking or not-thinking and yet
freely uses both of them.  But precisely because of
its standpoint of Non-thinking, Zen has in fact not
fully realized the positive an d creative aspects of
thinking and their significance which have been
especially developed in the West.  Logic and
scientific cognition based on substantive objective
thinking [Aristotle],  and moral principles and
ethical realization based on Subjective practical
thinking [Kant]..."
     "Because Zen (at least Zen up until today) has
thus not fully realized the positive and creative
aspects of human thinking, its position of
Non-thinking always harbours the danger of
degenerating into mere not-thinking.  In fact, Zen has
frequently degenerated into this position...  Zen must
take up as its historical task to place substantive
thinking and Subjective thinking, which have been
refined and firmly established in the western world,
within the world of its own Non-thinking, and to make
them function from 'the Origin of Non-attachment', so
as to establish various things in their particularity.
 However, to carry out this task, just as the Western
notions of 'Being' and 'Ought' are being forced into a
basic reexamination through present dialogue between
Zen and Western thought, Zen too must internally
embrace the standpoints of Western 'Being' and 'Ought'
which have been foreign to itself.  And it must grasp
again and renew its own standpoint of 'Nothingness' so
as to be able truly to concretize and actualize its
Non-thinking in the present moment of historical
time."  


    This whole 'Being' and 'Ought' and 'Nothingness of
Zen' are metaphysics in an effort to clarify reality. 
Each have tried to encompass the whole of reality, and
each can, if not fully understood, be conclusions that
leave something out.  As mentioned above, Zen is
Non-thinking, but that does not mean it erases
thinking and not-thinking.  Zen thinks and does not
think, too.  Yet, if not truly understood, Zen
degenerates into a not-thinking.  The MoQ is just
another effort to renew what the East and West can do.
 The MoQ clarifies Zen in dynamic quality and static
quality, which Zen is the latter for Zen is
intellectual and does not say rid thinking.  The MoQ
clarifies the West in static quality and dynamic
quality, which the West is the latter for the West
recognized reality is to go beyond dualism, but got
caught, as Abe states above, in the "...cul-de-sac of
thinking itself..."  
     As I'm seeing this, MoQ clarifies what the
Eastern and Western philosophies are clearly able to
do, but their emphasis have guided them into certain
directions.  Thus, as Buddhism enhanced Daoism in
China, which led to Chan, and Chan enhanced the
already Shinto beauty in Japan.  MoQ is not
necessarily a ridding of philosophies, but an
enhancement - a clarifier.

Any thoughts?

Snow fallin' heavy now,
SA


 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Any questions? Get answers on any topic at www.Answers.yahoo.com.  Try it now.