XPost: alt.philosophy.taoism, alt.buddha.short.fat.guy, alt.philosophy.zen
From: invalid@invalid.invalid
Ned Ludd wrote:
>
> "brian mitchell" wrote in message
> news:jmcp2clmg8vk7cd3c06hpf0neb3024evqs@4ax.com...
>> 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).
>>
>> If worse should ever come to the worst and your own book
>> doesn't reach its full public destiny, I hope you'll be kind to
>> posterity and at least reveal the secret with your last expiring
>> breath...
>>
>> "Rosebud"
>>
>
> I hope it's a graphic novel.
Is that secret code for "a comic book"?
> Very graphic.
Or maybe you're looking for porn.
>
> Ned
>
>>
>
>
The Ned Ludd translation of the TTC, are you the same Ned Ludd who
translated it? Did you work from the original chinese?
--
email: noname.1234567.abcdef@gmail.com
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
