[MD] Priest's paper terrible rubbish, unfortunately

[118]

Hey Tuukka,
Yes, I know, I was just teasing you.  It is good to believe in
something and make it a personal journey.  So your defense of yourself
is indeed noble.   I try not take such reciprocations when directed at
me personally.  Elsewise I would be a blubbering mass on the floor.
You are not really mean, you CARE.

When Marsha presents a quote, she then assumes total responsibility
for the quote.  Therefore any questioning of the quote is, in her
mind, an attack against her.  It is a strange place to view reality
from, but I am sure my place of view is just as strange.

When discussions suddenly take a turn to the personal, it is important
to move on to another discussion.  There is enough character
assassination going on in American politics in this season as it is.

Cheers,
Mark

On 2/15/12, Tuukka Virtaperko <mail at tuukkavirtaperko.net> wrote:
> Mark, Marsha
> hmm. I can sometimes be too mean. But it was reasonable of Marsha to ask
> for something substantial. I don't yet have the thing I promised. I
> guess I don't sufficiently distance other people from me, and need to
> attack them in order to not feel hurt myself, when I perceive them as
> disappointing. Maybe I need to think about my behavior more.
>
> Anyway, I was annoyed by already taking into account that it's not
> Marsha's fault the paper was bad. And her defence of the paper... oh
> wait, she's defenceless, right? I guess I won't start this conversation
> then. I didn't mean to personally attack. I just tried to find some
> reason why she reacted in a way I could not understand. What I said may
> have been somehow difficult to stomach, but I did not say it in a way
> that was tailored to hurt. I perceived the tone as neutral.
>
> -Tuukka
>
>
>
> 6.2.2012 19:16, 118 kirjoitti:
>> Gee Tuukka,
>> You are so mean to Marsha :-).  Can't you see she is defenseless?
>> Keep in mind that whatever you post will be seen as a personal attack
>> to some.  Having said that, it can be interesting to stir up the
>> hornet's nest.
>> Cheers,
>> Mark
>>
>> On 2/6/12, Tuukka Virtaperko<mail at tuukkavirtaperko.net>  wrote:
>>> Marsha,
>>> It is as if you were replying to a different message than I sent. Your
>>> response is hysteric, even though this is not quite personal. I get the
>>> feeling that you crave attention from me by seeming vulnerable and
>>> getting upset when nobody even challenged you.
>>>
>>> -Tuukka
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 6.2.2012 8:11, MarshaV kirjoitti:
>>>> Tuukka,
>>>>
>>>> There always will be some scholar that you can accuse me of being in
>>>> disagreement with.  And there are many subtle differences between
>>>> schools
>>>> and branches of Buddhism and interpretations of Nagarjuna's many works.
>>>> Do you think all scholars will agree on what RMP has said?  Do you think
>>>> all Jamesian scholars agree on what William James meant?  No!
>>>> Voices-in-unison is not the way of scholarship?  I bet you will find
>>>> scholars who disagree on what Aristotle meant, especially since his
>>>> original writing has never been discovered.  -  I read, I consider, I
>>>> test
>>>> and investigate ( I am conventionally speaking of course), I meditate,
>>>> and I draw my own conclusions based on my experience, and I leave room
>>>> for
>>>> change.
>>>>
>>>> So what is your point?  And why should your opinion/interpretation of
>>>> Priest matter to me?   What kind of academic credentials can you produce
>>>> to validate your opinion that Priest is right, wrong, all of the above
>>>> or
>>>> none of the above???    And, btw, where's your rubbish?  Do you have
>>>> anything a-b-s-o-l-u-t-e to present?  If your point is to prove me
>>>> wrong,
>>>> than let me assure you, as one who understands truth to be relative, I
>>>> am
>>>> never absolutely right.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Marsha
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Feb 5, 2012, at 7:31 PM, Tuukka Virtaperko<mail at tuukkavirtaperko.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In addition, Priest ends up claiming, that according to orthodox
>>>>> Mahayana
>>>>> Buddhism, everything is//samvṛtisatya, and there is no paramārthasatya.
>>>>> So he denies the Two Truths Doctrine without even mentioning it, as if
>>>>> he
>>>>> were unaware of such a doctrine.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Tuukka
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 6.2.2012 2:22, Tuukka Virtaperko kirjoitti:
>>>>>> Marsha, all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> remember the paper by Graham Priest, called Structure of Emptiness?
>>>>>> Cite:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "S'u-nyata-, in the sense we are going to understand it here, is
>>>>>> simply
>>>>>> the doctrine that /every/ entity that exists has relational existence.
>>>>>> There is no entity that has intrinsic existence.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I cannot think of any Western philosopher who has endorsed exactly
>>>>>> this
>>>>>> view, but it is orthodox in Maha-ya-na Buddhism. A canonical defence
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> the view was provided by Na-ga-rjuna, the second century Indian
>>>>>> philosopher, particularily in his text /Mu-lamadhyamakaka-rika-/. In
>>>>>> this text, Na-ga-rjuna goes through all the things that one might
>>>>>> think
>>>>>> to have self-existence, and argues that they do not. Many of the
>>>>>> arguments employed concern the kind of thing in question, such as
>>>>>> matter, time consciousness. But some of the arguments are quite
>>>>>> general.
>>>>>> Here is one such argument from Chapter 5 (or at least, my
>>>>>> interpretation
>>>>>> of it --- interpreting Na-ga-rjuna is always a sensitive issue).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Take an object that one might suppose to have self-existence. Since
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> argument is quite general, /anything/ will do, but for the sake of
>>>>>> illustration, suppose we take Aristotle. Aristotle had various
>>>>>> properties: having certain parents, being born in Stagrya, being
>>>>>> called
>>>>>> '???????????', and so on. Now, to be Aristotle is to be the bearer of
>>>>>> those properties. Any entity which bore (related to) those properties
>>>>>> would /be/ Aristotle. Aristotle, then, does not have self-existence:
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> be (identical to) Aristotle is to be related to those properties in
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> way."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's just terrible rubbish. He hasn't apparently read
>>>>>> /Mu-lamadhyamakaka-rika-. /Na-ga-rjuna says:
>>>>>> /
>>>>>> /"If we cannot find an entity with an essence, that does not prove the
>>>>>> non-existence of such entities. Some say that an entity that changes
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> a nonentity."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "To say "it is" is to be attached to essentialism. To say "it is not"
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> to lapse into nihilism. Therefore, judgments of "it is" or "it is not"
>>>>>> are not made by the wise."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The author terribly misrepresents Na-ga-rjuna. I don't know why. This
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> so obvious, it's not about Buddhism anymore. It's just about reading
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> damn work you're writing about. Any academic should have done better.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But the article was interesting, thank you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Tuukka
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> 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
>>> 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
>>>
>> 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
>
> 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
>