[MD] Quality as the fundamental building block of reality

[118]

Hi Tuukka,
This is a fun conversation.  I have some explaining of my opinion below.

>> Mark:
>> Yes, we can use this as a useful distinction to devide Quality up.  I
>> have been reading your posts on that subject.  I did not want to
>> derail your creation as it was happening, but I will respond to these.
>
> Tuukka:
> Okay, thank you I guess. I don't like people interfering with the
> creative process, so I appreciate this. They can help but I don't want
> them to disturb.

Yes, I agree.  Often a thread is derailed in this forum and the
original intent is lost.  I try to provide comments which do not
negate but simply provide another inroad to the understanding
presented.
>
>> Mark:
>> Being a scientist, I believe science should change, not Buddhism.  In
>> fact science always does change so if we have to change Buddhism to
>> meet the demands of science, then it will be of a different flavor
>> every five years.  No, Buddhism cannot change, something has to be an
>> anchor (if we have to choose between the two), otherwise we revert
>> back to relativism.  Also, Buddhism does not have to change since it
>> does not have to abide by Western thought.  However, for Buddhism to
>> take hold of the West, it does have to change its analogies a bit.
>> Emptiness and Nothingness means something completely different here in
>> the West.  Nobody wants to be Empty of Money, do they?
>
> Tuukka:
>
> Nice way of dismissing Dalai Lama there. But maybe he's just some old
> homophobic. :D

Mark:
I have no intention of dismissing DL who is someone I admire.  As I
see it, DL's intention is to provide an understanding of Tibetan
Buddhism to the West.  One way of doing this is to show the
concordance of scientific thought with Buddhist thought.  There is no
doubt that the older philosophy begets the newer philosophy.  The both
originate from the workings of the mind, and cannot therefore be
fundamentally different.  They differ simply in the method of
presentation.  Often this presentation seems to insinuate
disagreement, but such is not the case.  In my opinion, DL is fully
aware of this and his placation of the West is more political than
anything.  This comes with his job, and is very important to the
survival of his small nation.
>
> But a Karma Kagyu teacher told me that nothingness and allness are the
> same thing. Nothing wrong with allness of money. So here we get to the
> same point with the Western Greeks who thought that absence of A and B
> is the same thing as both A and B.

Yes, this is a good way of putting it.  Try explaining that to an
investment broker though.  You will probably get a blank dismissive
stare.
>
> Just out of curiosity, what's your branch of science?

My Branch of science has changed over the years, but I consider myself
a biophysical chemist.  My thesis was on energy transfer from the
biological to the solid state (computers that can taste, if you will).
 I am happy to do into detail if you have specific questions.
Currently I work at a company called Amgen, and am developing drugs
for cancer therapy.
>
> I think that being so Eastern, Dalai Lama doesn't care about empirical
> science as an adversary to Buddhism. He's only interested of logical
> proof or something like that. Deep down he knows there's very little
> science can do to make such demands of change in Buddhism that must be
> obeyed. Even in metaphysics, you can't really prove a metaphysical
> doctrine wrong. You can just point out it's silly or arbitrary or stuff
> like that.

Yes, I agree.  Buddhism is based on logic or "right thinking".  The
point is to harmonize different ways of approaching the human
condition towards the end of self-fulfillment.  A metaphysical
doctrine is a method for understanding.  It is the proposal of a view.
 Take for example a "illusion picture" that can either be two faces
looking at each other, or a challice. Or better yet, a Dali painting
such as:

http://www.newopticalillusions.com/optical-illusion-art/cup-or-face-optical-illusion/

Can one prove that it is the cup or the face?  Of course not.  The
point of metaphysics is whether it is useful for one's relationship to
the cosmos.
>
> And no, the notion that Buddhism could change does not get us to
> relativism. Speaking of absolutism and relativism is just another
> instance of subject--object-metaphysics. Another such instance is
> determinism and nondeterminism. In MOQ, we should speak of
> self-determinism, like Langan does.

Well, this is a discussion for another day.  It is not so much that it
changes, since new interpretations are always available, it is more a
question of why it changes.  If Buddhism is simply that which makes on
feel good, it is relativism.  It is a slippery slope.

I find Langan entertaining, at least what little I can understand.
Self-determinism is determinism that is not determinism as I
understand it.  I do not appreciate Langan's approach to reality as
encompassed by words, however.  This is something that Wittgentstein
tried to do but failed.  However, like I said, I do not claim to
understand Langan, but I do enjoy his analogies from quantum
mechanics.
>
>>>> Mark:
>>>>
>>>> There are many ways to explain reality.  The Western method seems to
>>>> be a linear or structural mode.  This is of course what logic is,
>>>> which subscribes to truths.  The Hindu method is more of a circular or
>>>> "dance" mode, which subscribes more to narrative or rhetoric
>>>> (remember dialectic v rhetoric from ZAMM?).  They are different
>>>> enough, that a different woldview (Weltanschauung) can be had.  It is
>>>> often difficult to relate the two since they are formed from different
>>>> assumptions.  I prefer the interactive or "relational" approach rather
>>>> than the linear or "relative" approach.  East v West as it were.
>>>>
>>> Tuukka:
>>>
>>> John Wheeler was a scientist from the West, and he said a reality theory
>>> may not be linear, but rather, a self-excited circuit. See pages 8-11 of
>>> the following paper if interested:
>>>
>>> www.iscid.org/papers/Langan_CTMU_092902.pdf
>> Mark:
>> Thanks for that.  Yes, I have followed Wheeler.  It is similar to God
>> wanting to look at himself, that is why existence, and also, humanity
>> was created.  (If God is everything, then why did he need to create
>> anything?)  I have proposed a similar analogy for Ham's Essentialism.
>> What you propose is a perpetual motion machine which is really what
>> the universe is since no energy comes in or out, but work is done.
>
> Tuukka:
> Okay...
>>
>
> Tuukka:
> Okay! Thanks a lot, Mark! =)

No, thanks to you!

Cheers,
Mark
>
> 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
>