[MD] Tit's

[MarshaV]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Krimel" <Krimel at Krimel.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 11:44 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] Tit's


> [Marsha]
> I am not even close to being able to properly explain any of this
> emptiness
> concept to you.  But I'd like to try one little aspect.  A thing that
> would
> inherently exist (like a thing-in-itself) would be an entity that would
> not
> depend on anything or not be subject to change of any kind.  (Which leads
> to
>
> Ron's post on illusion and reminds me of RMP's crystallization
> experience.)
> But I'm not sure that is your understanding of a thing-in-itself.  Anyway,
> to say more than that makes no sense because of my limited understanding
> and
>
> limited skill at explaining, and your lack of curiosity to read beyond
> Wikipedia.
>
> [Krimel]
> As to TiTs what you describe above is not at all what I have in mind. What
> you describe sounds more like a thing "unto" itself. Ham might find
> affinity
> with that but my view of TITs is far more pedestrian. I hope I have made
> it
> clear that I am no expert on Kant but as I see it, TiTs are everything
> every
> where. The computer I am typing on exists in my head as a pattern of
> associations. It's color, its texture, the heat from the processor are
> patterns of experience in my head. They are what I know about the
> computer.
> But the computer is also a TiI (Thing in Itself) independent of my
> perception of it. My perception is limited by sensitivity of my sensory
> systems, the fidelity of my memory and my history with this and similar
> objects. My experience of this computer is mediated by my senses and
> perception. The computer as a TiI is not available to me in unmediated
> form.
>
>
> I think the concept of illusion as Ron framed it is indeed useful because
> it
> helps to remind us that our perception and understanding of things,
> however
> comforting we find them, are changeable. They can be radically reformed
> and
> restructured in other ways. This is, as you point out, a lot like Pirsig's
> crystallization experience. It is no secret that I am not mystically
> inclined but I have had experiences of this kind several times and they
> have
> profoundly effected me. The effect of having ones conceptual continuity
> shaken and radically restructured into something more profound and
> beautiful
> is simply marvelous. What I take from such experiences is the conviction
> that lurking behind or beneath my present understanding is the possibility
> of even more profound restructuring to come.
>
> I get the feeling that you find value in the notion of no structure at
> all.
> But I think that even Buddhists would claim that that is ultimately just
> another way of structuring things. Where you see value in emptiness I see
> value in flexibility. My hope is for a structure of thought that is
> organic
> enough to grow and adapt and include more phenomena and as Ian would say
> connect more dots. The problem that Buddhism addresses, as I understand
> it,
> is not so much having a structure as clinging to a structure.
>
> After all isn't that the problem Nagarjuna was addressing? Isn't it
> supposed
> to be the middle way between those who argued for abandonment of the
> mundane
> world to seek union with an otherworldly divine experience and those who
> said that divine experience is equally to be found in the everyday world
> of
> sweat and bone? At least that's what I got from the Sparknotes...
>


A thing-in-itself (inherently existing object) would be an entity that has
an existence independent of thoughts and perceptions, an entity that exists
from its own side.  Both Buddhism and the MOQ deny such an entity.
Buddhism says that entities are empty of inherent existence.  I surmise that
the idea of a pattern is opposed to the idea of an inherently existing
entity.

That things appear to have an independent existence would be illusion.  That
we think they have an independent existence is the source of all suffering.
That the world appears to function like things independently exist is its
conventional operating procedure.  Not to understand the two different modes
of existing is ignorance.

It is not that I value the notion of no structure, it is that I value
existing closer to the truth.  As I see it that means the world is built on
conceptions..  Maybe shared, patterned conceptions, but conceptions
none-the-less.

The Middle Way, as I understand it, is between thinking objects are exactly
as they appear (reificationists) and thinking there is no bases for anything
at all (nihilists).

I could sooo mess this up, and I really do not want to do that, if I haven't
already.   I'll stop now.

Marsha