[MD] patterns of interaction

[118]

Marsha,
How do you feel about that?  What reasons do you have to agree or
disagree with that statement?  Anthony McWatt has made many statements
I am sure.  Is this one of particular importance to you?  If so, why?

Do you think deconstruction, as we currently do in the West to
explain, is the best way of presenting reality?  Are you saying that
MoQ needs to follow a deconstructionalist method as we have been doing
for thousands of years since Aristotle?  If so, I would like to
understand why, from your own perspective.

Cheers,
Mark

On 1/31/12, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>
> Mark,
>
> Anthony McWatt has made a comparison between RMP's thinking and that of
> Nagarjuna; here are some others, including Wittgenstein, Nietzsche and
> Derrida.
>
> The Dharma of Deconstruction. -  David R. Loy
>
>
> "THE FUNDAMENTAL INSIGHT of what is known as the "linguistic turn" in
> twentieth-century Western thought is that language shapes our experience.
> Some of the most influential modern thinkers challenge our usual assumption
> that using language is merely a matter of attaching names to things that
> already exist in the world. In a very important sense, language creates the
> world as we know it.
>
> "This realization challenges our everyday sense of things. We usually think
> of language (when we think of it at all) as something "transparent" or as
> being like a mirror, reflecting things as they really are. But language does
> not simply reflect the world; in fact, it largely determines what we notice
> and what we do not. In coming to a greater understanding of how language
> affects the ways we experience the world, and ourselves, Western thought is
> now able, as well, to gain a better understanding of the great Buddhist
> dialectician Nagarjuna, whose work is generally considered the most
> important, and the most difficult, in all of Buddhist philosophy."
>
>
>
> (http://integral-options.blogspot.com/2009/09/david-loy-dharma-of-deconstruction.html)
>
>
>
> On Jan 30, 2012, at 8:24 PM, 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Marsha,
>> I am glad you liked it.  Personally I do not care much for
>> Wittgenstein and his deconstructionist methods.  ...
>>
>> ...
>>
>> It could be correct that Wittgenstein does speak directly to MoQ, and
>> there is a need to deconstruct in order to better understand, I am
>> easy.  By the way, was this from his Tractatus or post-Tractatus
>> period.  It makes a difference since he changed his view on some
>> fundamental grounds.  I also believe that Wittgenstein claimed that
>> all philosophy is somewhat silly, since it is playing around with
>> words.   But, maybe  that is an urban legend.
>>
>> Perhaps you could explain how Wittgenstein views are related to MoQ.
>>
>> I am just trying to stay on track in terms of discussing MoQ.  You
>> certainly support Tuukka's recursive approach, so you may be going in
>> the right direction.  I am adventurous, so carry on.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Mark
>>
>>
>> There is no such thing as the subject that thinks or entertains ideas. —
>> LudwigWittgenstein
>>
>
> 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
>