XPost: alt.philosophy.taoism, alt.buddha.short.fat.guy, alt.philosophy.zen   
   From: invalid@invalid.invalid   
      
   Tang Huyen  wrote:   
   > 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   
   >   
      
   What is the book you are attempting to have published, and how long has it   
   been completed?   
      
   --   
   email: noname.1234567.abcdef@gmail.com   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)