Re: [Mind's Eye] Re: Just a thought...

No, Orn, you and me together doesn't make us the goddess of justice, that's right.

Keep an eye on you blood pressure. ;)

On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 3:57 AM, ornamentalmind <ornsmindseyespam@yahoo.com> wrote:

Gabby…, I fear you do not understand my motivation nor even what I was
doing.

We can both claim 'blindness' in the other forever. The result of such
attacks is that nothing rational is communicated… it just turns into
the blind leading/shouting at the blind. This is exactly why we
disallow Ad Hominem (http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/
arguments.html#hominem ) arguments.
http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye/web/posting-guidelines

In case it is important to anyone at all, the link was to the source
of my words about:

"…distinction between differing philosophies is 'reasonable to make'.
"

This is one of our standards…to provide our sources. Neil did. I did.

On May 6, 6:46 am, gabbydott <gabbyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> There it is back again. You didn't get anything I tried to bring across.
> Tell me, Orn, what are you to possess the necessary sense of blindness that
> Neil seems to be lacking?
>
> You could have posted a wiki link on Geronimo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geronimo) to exemplify how well embraced
> eastern and western cultures can live across times in perfect innocence
> without any scepticism.
>
> And what did you do? You posted a wiki link to the name of the person whose
> thoughts had been introduced to the discussion by Neil. Unbelievable. Your
> embracing the world must indeed feel impossible to describe.
>
> On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 1:45 AM, ornamentalmind

> <ornsmindseyes...@yahoo.com>wrote:

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > As to there being 'no view', in a sense this is correct. Having 'no
> > position' is one of the principles of consciousness…even though as
> > this list proves, we all are posters for holding firm to positions!
>
> > The thing with 'no position/view' is that this doesn't imply the lack
> > of awareness nor even the actual lack of discrimination. It is a
> > unique state that embraces everything and everyone all at once…
> > something quite a bit easier to imply than to describe!
>
> > Of course even the philosopher Senge (Gorampa) concluded that a
> > distinction between differing philosophies is 'reasonable to make'.
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorampa
>
> > The apparent difference between east/west philosophy needn't be as
> > wide as many make it. Yes Neil, it would be nice if Rene's skepticism
> > as being a necessary stop on the road. However, as far as I can tell,
> > it is but an aborted short trip in the opposite direction.
>
> > And, yes, 'all kinds of arguments can always be made'.
>
> > Welcome old friend!
>
> > On May 5, 3:56 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > One might go 'Gorampa' on this.  Gorampa's particular brand of Madhyamaka
> > > philosophy is defined by his understanding of the relationship between
> > the
> > > two truths, the use of negation, the role of logic, and proper methods of
> > > philosophical argumentation.  His work was banned, one reason I've been
> > > looking.  .His views regarding the two truths and negation inform a
> > process
> > > whereby the Mādhyamika begins with logic and analysis, but ends in a
> > state
> > > of nonconceptuality, Gorampa contends that there can be no differences
> > > between Mādhyamikas with respect to their final view. There cannot be
> > > different types of nonconceptuality; freedom from conceptual constructs
> > is
> > > freedom from conceptual constructs.   The final, ultimate view is
> > actually
> > > no view at all.
>
> > > This might seem as much use as as chocolate teapot.  I suspect there is
> > some
> > > way for us to commune non-conceptually long before any 'guru state' is
> > > achieved and that we need this for knowledge that can shift us from the
> > > current interregnum.  One might take Descartes as meaning one has to
> > doubt
> > > all to arrive at anything of value, and I rather like the notion that
> > this
> > > is non-conceptual.  I like the sway of these Indian and Tibetan
> > arguments,
> > > yet think they serve to remind us how much we exclude from our arguments
> > > in forgetting what the self does in argument, rushing us to 'decision',
> > > forgetting all kinds of argument can always be made  (Pyrhho in western
> > > stuff).