XPost: alt.philosophy.taoism, alt.buddha.short.fat.guy, alt.philosophy.zen
From: invalid@invalid.invalid
Tang Huyen wrote:
> On 11/16/2016 2:50 PM, noname wrote:
>
>> What is the book you are attempting to have published, and how long has it
>> been completed?
>
> I started it some decades ago, with an eye on Buddhism,
> but gradually my focus shifted to pure reason, in the
> strict Kantian sense, the a priori domain, independent of
> experience, though I still keep quite some attention to
> Buddhism, and extend it to Daoism and Stoicism. I take
> pure reason, the a priori domain, independent of
> experience, as the explaining scheme which explains
> Buddhism, Daoism, Stoicism, and the Greats in European
> philosophy, Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, Augustine, Thomas,
> Kant, Hegel, Husserl, Heidegger, etc. One crucial witness
> to the universality of pure reason happens to be a
> Frenchwoman of low nobility, with little formal education,
> who writes in popular (and not academic, not learned)
> French with a street flavour, Madame Guyon. She reintuits
> much of ancient Stoicism, and also of Buddhism and
> Daoism, at a time when almost nothing is known of
> Oriental philosophy and religion. In rational history, she
> bequeaths the main lines of thought to the German
> Greats, Kant, Hegel, also to a lesser extent Heidegger,
> though of them, only Kant mentions her unfavourably in
> an unpublished note. Leibniz knew of her and wrote a
> negative letter about her. Hegel and Heidegger probably
> never heard of her.
>
> My ambition is to write a rational history of philosophy,
> from the point of view of pure reason, covering East and
> West, antiquity and modernity, which includes theology
> and mysticism (not the experience per se, but the
> theoretical justification of it). Much of it has been written,
> but I keep rewriting it, as my thinking goes more deeply
> and I find more shared patterns amongst the above. And
> all the fancy talk of methodology aside, my main tool is
> pattern-matching, which is the revealing factor of
> commonality, if the patterns can be found that bridge all
> apparent divisions, like time, space, language, culture,
> religion, etc., and if such patterns can be made to
> harmonise together, which makes them a system, in the
> Greek sense of what stands together.
>
> So, my manuscript has not been completed, but much
> has been written, and I hope to complete it and get it
> published, though it is not going to get accepted easily,
> seeing that it is revolutionary, in that it turns upside
> down much of white scholarship, even in the domain of
> European philosophy alone. This domain of pure reason
> is mostly a virgin forest, with scarcely any probing,
> surely not in depth, even if the expressions "pure reason"
> and "a priori" have been heralded for over two centuries.
> White scholars talk about it in awe, but don't quite know
> what it is, as if it was God, no less.
>
> Tang Huyen
>
Maybe it is, who can say with any authority what is God, when even a god
cannot know he isn't the toy of some higher being?
I hope you have made your chapters standalone instead of threading them all
together so it becomes necessary to rewrite everything for each little
insight. I'm no historian but the layman's view gives the "history of all
philosophy everywhere" a rather large canvas to cover, so keep backups of
that hard-drive and make plans for a larger one.
But who knows, often it seems that our real purposes are shielded from the
knowledge of our outer/societal selves, and you might simply be writing a
very long prelude to a very short book, should you stumble upon the
awakening all those philosophers have been seeking forever and find a way
to transmit it without the need for your physical presence.
--
email: noname.1234567.abcdef@gmail.com
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
