[MD] logically incoherent - corrected

[MarshaV]

Many apologies!!!  I misquoted Ms. Albahari.  Here is her corrected quotes:


   "When X purports (through a medium of appearance) to exist in manner F,
    to person P, X-as-F is illusory when X does not really exist in manner F."   

"She explains "Most generally, an illusion involves a conflict between appearance and reality.  Something, X, appears to be the case, but there is something about X that does not reflect reality; it MISLEADS the person to whom it appears.  In other words, X PURPORTS, through the appearance, to exist in a particular manner, when X does NOT REALLY exist in the purported manner."

       (Albahari, Miri, 'Analytical Buddhism: The Two-tiered Illusion of Self ' p.122) 











On Sep 7, 2011, at 6:12 AM, MarshaV wrote:

> 
> On Sep 7, 2011, at 1:19 AM, Ham Priday wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Dear Marsha --
>> 
>> On Tuesday, 9/06/11 at 5:14 PM, "MarshaV" <valkyr at att.net> wrote.
>> 
>>> Hello Ham,
>>> 
>>> Can you provide proofs for your premises?
>>> 
>>> Citing "classical philosophy" is an argument  from authority.
>>> Is there a proof for the premise, 'ex nihilo nihil fit'?  Or is it
>>> true because the Ancient Greeks thought so?
>> 
>> Unfortunately, the "proofs" you're demanding are non-existent.  Unlike the empirical conclusions of Science, philosophical theories are unprovable. That's largely because what we call "proof" is confirmed by empirical evidence, and ultimate reality is not empirical.  It's also because were we able to prove a metaphysical theory, it would mean that we had possession of absolute truth   And humans cannot have absolute truth without losing their freedom as agents of Value.  .
>> 
>>> Please explain your "empirical precept for 'first cause'"?
>> 
>> You already know it, Marsha.  Since you were a toddler, you learned (or were taught) that every occurrence is the consequence of some previous event or action.  We live in a world of cause-and-effect where "conventional logic" tells us that there is no such thing as spontaneous creation.  Scientists and philosophers have long pondered the paradoxical question as to how this progression of events began.  The prevailing view of Science is that it all started with a cataclysmic Bang some 14 billion years ago.  But since energy and mass were required to ignite this "First Cause", some cosmologists have opted for a "steady-state" universe with no beginning.
>> 
>> Philosophers, on the other hand, have reasoned that time and space are not intrinsic to the universe, suggesting that the progression itself is an experiential illusion and that evolution is a "modality" of the Creator or Source rather than a serial process.  This, of course, contradicts the causal precept of empiricism which we all grow up with.  But even from the empirical perspective, things do not come into being by their own power. And, if logic has any philosophical meaning, that necessitates an uncreated Source.
>> 
>>> With all respect to Sir Doktor Professor Heidegger, where is your proof for
>>> the metaphysical adaptation of Heidegger's question?
>> 
>> Again, while there is no proof, you know this intuitively.  Why is there being instead of nothing?  Being IS; everything exists.  If there were no being there would be no Marsha to ask the question.  But "beingness" is always finite, and Heidegger went on to discuss finitude (existence) as a "negation" of the Absolute.  This concept was new to philosophy but not to human thought.  Eckhart in the 14th century taught that the Creator "denies that otherness is anything but itself."  The logical equivalent of this denial was formulated as "not anything other than" by Nicholas Cusa a century later.  It is my theory that, in the metaphysical sense, denial is a negation of nothingness to actualize an experienced otherness.
>> 
>> In closing, I'd like to stress one additional point that applies to a number of MD participants who seem to be treating reality as a myth, which is nihilism carried to an extreme.  For example, Ron recently aserted:
>> 
>>> Experience is illusion. Therefore all wisdom is illusional.
>>> Quality is illusion, every last bit.
>> 
>> Such pronouncements are not only troubling, they make a mockery of Pirsig's thesis.  You may call existence an illusion, just as you call the self an illusion.  But you can not escape the fact that this "illusion" is your reality.
> 
> 
> Hello Ham,
> 
> Ron is clinging to a silly, little boy's notion of illusion for his own purposes.  Here's Ms. Albahari's short, but formal definition:
> 
>    "When X purports (through a medium of appearance) to exist in manner F,
>     to person P, X-as-F is illusory when X does not really exist in manner F."   
> 
> She explains "Most generally, an illusion involves a conflict between appearance and reality.  Something, X, appears to be the case, but there is something about X that does not reflect reality' it MISLEADS the person to whom it appears.  In other words, X PURPORTS, through the appearance, to exist in a particular manner, than X does NOT REALLY exist in the purported manner."
> 
> 
> Marsha 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 
> 
> 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/md/archives.html


 
___