"Keynes" <Keynes@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:ko1p14tric5aiec2rigirrr4ru7kjqrd5n@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Sat, 3 May 2008 11:32:18 -0400, "^@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>---*=#" <yomama@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Keynes" <Keynes@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>news:itvo14h2jkcl4snms2m38fv41t6iguv9i7@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> On Sat, 03 May 2008 10:23:19 -0400, Tang Huyen
>>> <tanghuyen{delete}@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Dave K wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "ltlee1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
" <ltlee1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>:
>>>>>
>>>>> > I will distinguish between the atem****al or timeless self and the
>>>>> > self
>>>>> > at time t1,t2,t3... and etc. Similarly, one cannot drop the
>>>>> > atem****al
>>>>> > norms and standards. But should drop the tem****al norms and
>>>>> > standards
>>>>> > or the self's relation****pt with these standards and norms. To be
>>>>> > more
>>>>> > specific, I would say standars and norms are only standards and
>>>>> > norms
>>>>> > because they have power relation****ps with the self. What can be
>>>>> > dropped are by default limited by time. We cannot drop anytime
which
>>>>> > is timeless. Limited by time also mean non-optimal.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > One of Zeno's paradox goes like this: If we take snapshots of an
>>>>> > arrow
>>>>> > in flight at any time t, the arrow will have an exact position. So
>>>>> > it
>>>>> > is not moving at time t. If the arrow in flight is not moving at
t,
>>>>> > it
>>>>> > cannot be moving at time t-1 or t+1. Hence an arrow in flgiht is
an
>>>>> > illlusion.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > The self is like an arrow in flight. If we look at it at any time,
>>>>> > it
>>>>> > is an illusion and can be dropped. But this is also an illusion.
>>>>>
>>>>> So what do you do with all this philosophy?
>>>>
>>>>Your query has received a reply from the original
>>>>poster, but I'll jump in and add my opinion
>>>>(everybody has an opinion, like everybody has an
>>>>a**hole).
>>>>
>>>>Zeno's theory objectively has a hole, in that in each
>>>>instant the arrow still moves, even if only
>>>>infinitesimally. But his insight applies subjectively,
>>>>in that in each instant we are free if we take it (the
>>>>instant) alone, without past and future, without
>>>>liaison, connection and relation. I am alluding to the
>>>>theory of the atomic instant, as propounded by
>>>>Epicurus and the Buddhist school called Sautrantika.
>>>>In Buddhism it is called the mere instant
>>>>(ksana-matra), which is only the instant and nothing
>>>>more. It is the instant in its baldness, shorn of all
>>>>associations, tem****al or causal or otherwise,
>>>>without reference to anything outside of itself. This
>>>>is the reverse to the usual Buddhist theory of
>>>>universal connectedness, also called
>>>>interdependence (in idiomatic English, mutual
>>>>influence), as here every connection is disregarded
>>>>and the instant is taken as an absolute, in and of
>>>>itself, a self-standing snapshot of the universe
>>>>(actually, of the mind) that has no precedent and
>>>>subsequent.
>>>>
>>>>This is found in Hui-neng, who talks of freedom in
>>>>each instant (nian-nian jie-tuo), and indeed in
>>>>serenity and grace, there is a tremendous sense of
>>>>relatedness, and yet at the same time a tremendous
>>>>sense of self-sufficiency, so that, according to the
>>>>former, the universe is a thorougly connected whole,
>>>>but according to the latter the universe is a block
>>>>universe frozen in perfection from all eternity. This
>>>>is an experience to be experienced a posteriori, not a
>>>>concept to be analysed a priori. The saturation of
>>>>such an experience, the richness of it, the
>>>>overflowing abundance of it oozing out from all over,
>>>>are such that it can tolerate any kind of intellectual
>>>>views afterwards, even conflicting views, but in itself
>>>>it has to be experienced to be known as a unit (sorry
>>>>for all the pleonasms).
>>>>
>>>>As I keep saying, liberation is purely subjective,
>>>>strictly sentimental, and has no objective counterpart,
>>>>nothing that it can be tied down to. In Buddhism,
>>>>there is a funny contradiction. On one hand, Buddhist
>>>>theory emphasises relations, mutual relations that go
>>>>on indefinitely, especially in causality, and on the
>>>>other in practice the sage is independent and
>>>>self-sufficient. There is another funny contradiction,
>>>>in that there is universal connectedness, and there is
>>>>the atomic instant, where all connection is disregarded.
>>>>
>>>>It is said that in Buddhism different schools proclaim
>>>>different theories, and even different practices, so that
>>>>the relativity of such theories and practices is intimated,
>>>>ever so obliquely. It is said that Avalokiteshvara has a
>>>>thousand heads, a thousand eyes, a thousand arms, a
>>>>thousand hands, each hand holding a different weapon,
>>>>so that he (in China, he is a she, Guan-Yin) can help
>>>>people with different aptitudes. It takes all kinds. This
>>>>is openness, flexibility, tolerance for ambiguity *in act*.
>>>>Buddhism is itself an embodiment of such an attitude,
>>>>and would fail if it did not have room for such diversity.
>>>>
>>>>Tang Huyen
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Continuity, cause and effect, and karma are rational
>>> interpretations of so-called events in time.
>>
>>rational ? does it really appear
>>to you that anyone is rational ?
>>have you driven the freeway
>>lately ?
>>
>>> But they
>>> must depend on unreliable memory and unknowing
>>> imagination-expectatons - all in the present.
>>
>>imagination and expectations are not
>>only present moment motivated they
>>also rely on past memory for formulation
>>and negotiation and future expectation
>>for the same.
>>
>>> Where
>>> else is there to go for anything?
>>
>>"oh the sights we'll show you."
>>>pinhead from 'hellraiser'
>>
>>> Without rationalizing
>>> the changes of time, where are the connections?
>>
>>there are synaptic firings which
>>correlate the electromagnetic and
>>chemical cinematics that allow us
>>the fantasy that we are rational.
>>
>>> The mind makes time out of nothing, and always
>>> in the present.
>>
>>there is no present to our psyches.
>>by the time that one ten thousandth
>>of a second p***** that is needed
>>to cognize the present moment, it
>>too has passed.
>
> Lost in time and space?
danger will robinson, danger !
|
