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

[William Robinson]

Wow, I thought you were talking about females tits as objects of peception?
But on the other hand Kant really covered the subject by expounding on the
dialectic: noumena et al: "on things in themselves" as a counterpoint to
nothing in particular.  I have been a little distracted on this subject for
most of my life.
Perhaps, I need to analyze this subject in more detail....
I'll try to more seriously analyze,  And post a more detailed analysis this
weekend.
Robbie

PS. I doubt if Heidegger really pushed Neitszche's analysis much further.  I
think Nietszche is really the last word on the subject. Too bad penicillen
wasn't developed sooner. Maybe "Mr. Neet" could have developed his
philosopher better during his last 10 years that he did spend as a mad man.
But as it exists today. N's analysis is a jewell of human thought processes.
Robbie


On 12/7/06, Heather Perella <spiritualadirondack at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>    [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.
> 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/
>