Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

50724Re: [existlist] Re: Buddhism and blindness to reality

Expand Messages
  • Herman
    Jan 31, 2010
      Hi Hb3g,

      2010/2/1 hb3g@... <hb3g@...>:
      > Polly: The way I would go about answering questions like the above would be to first draft a list of those characteristics of the x in question that make it an x.
      >
      > hb3g: How do you know the list of characteristics that make x what it is, is complete? I take it you mean the essential ones, and not any of the accidental ones. Right?

      Yes, exactly. The defining ones, the ones without which x would no
      longer be x. Whiteness is not defining of a fridge, for example.
      Keeping stuff cool would be.


      >
      > Polly: Then I would ascertain whether those characteristics could also be the characteristics of a not-x. If that turns out to be the case, then the x is also a not-x and one can safely discard both as meaningless.
      >
      > hb3g: An x has characteristic A. And y, a not-x, also has characteristic A. For example, this flower is red, and my car, which is not this flower, is red. Their both being red isn't a contradiction. It is a similarity.

      Yes, but as above, the colour isn't defining of a flower or car.

      >
      > Polly: If it turns out that x can only be x, then the next thing to do would be to see if there is an actual x out there as a happening thing.
      >
      > hb3g: How would we know the actual x? Only through its characteristics. Right? We don't invent the characteristics of x.

      Well, where did God come from? What were his characteristics that were
      out there for us to know? In the same vein, we are talking about this
      because you know there is a self. Which is fine. But what are the
      characteristics of this self whereby you know this self? And couldn't
      those characteristics also not belong to something not-self?


      >We learn them. But sometimes we are mistaken, because the same characteristic can belong to more than just one thing, and, some characteristics are more important than others.
      >

      Right on.

      >
      > Polly: And if it turns out that in drafting our list of characteristics we have made x unverifiable, we have wasted our time.
      >
      > hb3g: Or we've picked the wrong characteristics, or trivial ones.
      >

      Or we have merely invented them, and want them to be inaccessible.


      Polly
    • Show all 168 messages in this topic