[MD] Platt's Individual Level

[Dan Glover]

Hello everyone

>From: "Case" <Case at iSpots.com>
>Reply-To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
>Subject: Re: [MD] Platt's Individual Level
>Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2006 19:57:04 -0400
>
>[Dan]
>I think what Phaedrus possibly failed to grasp during his time in India is
>that though the nature of the world is illusory, that nature doesn't negate
>cause and condition. I think Phaedrus gave up on account of the fact he
>failed at the time to grasp that there is no separation between subject and
>object...he believed objects were things in themselves rather than
>intellectual patterns of value, a very difficult point to grasp. So perhaps
>it was just easier to give up and go home than it was to expand his
>consciousness to the point of that of his Indian professor.
>
>Your thoughts?
>
>[Case]
>I have not followed the course of this thread well so if I have missed the
>point entirely I apologize. But your statement above and the quote you
>included caught my eye so I am presuming to jump in.

Hi Case

Good to hear from you!

>
>I am not sure whether the this reflects actually oriental philosophy or
>merely the western translation of same but this statement strikes me as
>either missing the point or flat out wrong.

Quite possible...

>
>"I think Phaedrus gave up on account of the fact he failed at the time to
>grasp that there is no separation between subject and object."
>
>I agree that from the subject's point of view there is no difference 
>between
>objects and the subject's impressions of them. But to say that there are no
>objects strikes me as a very different thing. Phaedrus might have done well
>to stay and try to make some sense of what his teacher was saying but this
>interpretation is rubbish. Just because we are in principle separated from
>the objects of the world does not mean that they do not exist.

This seems to be a subtle misinterpretation of the point I was making. In 
the context you've set up (one of subject-object distinction) we are indeed 
"separated from the objects of the world" but that is not at all what I am 
saying, which is that there is no "object in itself" lurking behind what we 
perceive as an object of the world. There is only the idea of the object 
(intellectual patterns of value) and that idea is how we measure reality. 
Always! Whether the object exists (or not) is beyond what we can know since 
we cannot experience the world directly.

>
>In what sense does saying the world is illusory not negate cause and
>condition?
>

This is a little more difficult to answer but I'll do my best. Let's say 
life is like riding in a boat. In this boat, you work the rudder, the sail, 
and plot a course - still, the boat carries you and you're nothing without 
the boat. Riding in the boat, you cause the boat to be a boat.

You need to really consider this point carefully: at this moment, the boat 
is the world - the sky, the water, the shore, they have all become 
circumstances of the boat, unlike the circumstances that are not the boat. 
In this fashion, reality is our causing reality - it is reality causing us 
to be ourselves.

So when riding in the boat, mind and body, subject and object, are all 
workings of the boat. The whole of earth and space are workings of the boat. 
Cause and condition are all part too. So though the world be illusory this 
in no way negates cause and condition.

I hope this helps answer your question.

Thanks for your comments,

Dan