[MD] Priest's paper

Wed Feb 15 18:09:00 PST 2012

Marsha,
and you were right. I did like to read the paper. Even though I called 
it rubbish! I was simply happy that a professor cares about these 
things. That was very unusual 50 years ago.

-Tuukka

15.2.2012 23:15, MarshaV kirjoitti:
> 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
> 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