[MD] Priest's paper

MarshaV valkyr at att.net
Wed Feb 15 13:15:18 PST 2012 

Tuukka,

The Priest quote is long ago and far away.  I thought you'd like to read the paper because he was offering a mathematical characterization of Emptiness.  His demonstration was always over my mathematical head.  I feel no responsibility for you agreeing or disagreeing, liking or disliking the paper.  


Marsha 

  
 
 
Sent from my iPad

On Feb 15, 2012, at 2:58 PM, 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

More information about the Moq_Discuss mailing list