[MD] subject / object logic

[Ant McWatt]

Quoting Platt to Arlo September 20th :

>[Platt had initially made this moronic statement]
>
>Both real AND illusory, like my cat is also my dog. That makes perfect 
>sense. I guess in your ivory tower, words are meaningless.
>
>[Arlo had pointed out the stupidity of such a ridiculous statement that 
>panders to typical right-wing bullshit about the dreaded academy]
>
>The typical, expected distortions, followed by another boring cliche 
>assault on the academy. Talk about "ho hum".
>
>[Platt responds]
>Avoiding the issue as usual by throwing mud.
>
>[Arlo]
>Tell me what "issue" I am avoiding? Your initial comment above, as I point 
>out, is simply moronic rhetoric.

[Platt]

Explain how something can be both real and illusory at the same time.
I'm waiting.

Ant McWatt comments:

Platt,

I think the fundamental problem here is assigning ontological equivalence of 
static entities with Dynamic Quality.  Consequently, the either/or dichtomy 
of asking whether a static entity is real or illusory is a ham fisted way to 
deal with such a question and is presumably the reason why Buddhist 
philosophers invented the more subtle four pronged tetralemma to better 
handle such questions.

In some sense to ask if my pet dog is real or an illusion is as problematic 
logically as asking if my pet dog has a Buddha nature.  In other words, 
maybe the problem lies in asking a question that is essentially nonsensical 
in the first place and, as such, requires framing in a different way.

Best wishes,

Anthony


.

_________________________________________________________________
The next generation of Hotmail is here!  http://www.newhotmail.co.uk