XPost: alt.buddha.short.fat.guy, alt.philosophy.taoism, alt.philosophy.zen   
   From: tanghuyen@gmail.com   
      
   On 11/16/2016 8:45 AM, Lee Dillion wrote:   
      
   > It would seem that, over the years, you have attempted   
   > to explain "pure reason, in the strict Kantian sense"   
   > and how it relates to Buddhism and Stoicism.  Being the   
   > dullards that we are, you should try some more.   
      
   I admit that I talk about it without explaining it,   
   without even giving the gist of it, even when   
   Brian poked me on it, so I have been cheap and   
   reticent. On the Daoist board, pi and JayLo   
   (perhaps also noname, though I am not sure   
   about him) talk constantly about paradigms,   
   paradigmatic forms, and paradigm shifts, along   
   with axioms and all that good stuff, but they,   
   whether they are scholars or not, are plainly   
   groping in the dark, just like the white scholars   
   in the humanities.   
      
   It is just like in mental culture, as JayLo keeps   
   saying, what is instantly seen by the (supposed)   
   awakeneds is very hard for the non-awakened   
   to have any glimmer of, even intellectually. So   
   the stuff from LZ and ZZ that JayLo quotes   
   profusely is packed choke-full with all the above   
   good stuff, which is what forms and structures it   
   wall to wall, yet the quoter himself (to me)   
   scarcely has any idea about the axiomatic or   
   paradigmatic form of what he quotes (though I   
   am very grateful for his meaty and fascinating   
   quotes, as I have hardly the time and resource   
   to explore the authors quoted, and in very   
   interesting cases, I can look up the Chinese).   
   The axiomatic and paradigmatic forms just jump   
   out of the screen and stare at me blankly, as if   
   telling me, hey, what are you doing here.   
      
   So I apologise for being cheap and reticent,   
   but am going to keep being so until I get my   
   book published, which may be a pipe dream.   
      
   Just to whet your appetite further (see how a   
   sadist I am), I quote Bertrand Russell about   
   “structure” in a book published in 1927, The   
   Analysis of Mind: we can “infer a great deal as   
   to the structure of the physical world, but not   
   as to its intrinsic character,” “Whatever we infer   
   from perceptions it is only structure that we can   
   validly infer; and structure is what can be   
   expressed by mathematical logic,” and “The   
   only legitimate attitude about the physical   
   world seems to be one of complete agnosticism   
   as regards all but its mathematical properties.”   
   Respectively pages 400, 254, 270. Take what he   
   says about the physical world and apply it to   
   the mental realm of philosophy, and you have   
   what Kant calls pure reason, though Kant   
   himself is lost about pinning down what would   
   qualify. (This wonderful book is not available on   
   the Internet; it should be the pillow book for   
   researchers in pure reason).   
      
   Tang Huyen   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)