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

[David M]

Hi Robbie

If you want to know what sort of Kantian
Heidegger was check out Anthony Rudd's book
Expressing theWorld.

DM

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "William Robinson" <bill.robbie at gmail.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 12:23 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] East meets West: the clarifing effort of the MoQ


> 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/
>>
> 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/
>