tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3736365491401043672.post1557198839465187581..comments2024-01-16T09:31:45.073-04:00Comments on Anderson Brown's Philosophy Blog: Buddhism and QualiaAnderson Brownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18358008464457746997noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3736365491401043672.post-72381827732252376062012-07-31T23:35:40.237-04:002012-07-31T23:35:40.237-04:00Very good article. However, you made a mistake abo...Very good article. However, you made a mistake about Dogen. I am a Soto Zen practitioner, and I can tell you Dogen was very much against Koan practice. The Koan practice is used more in Rinzae Zen, which Dogen found unsatisfactory. Dogen went to China and found his practice of "Shikantaza" and received his Dharma transmission from his master there. You can read more about it from a biography, but keep in mind the fundamental different approaches in the Rinzae and Soto schools.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3736365491401043672.post-79531932252623541192012-04-08T01:01:01.998-04:002012-04-08T01:01:01.998-04:00this is stream-of-consciousness, so I am actually ...this is stream-of-consciousness, so I am actually sorry for that, and given it is messy, am not really expecting a response at all. just thought i'd post anyway.<br /><br />I wondered if the way in which article was structured seemed to deny the moderate realism that some thinkers, like Tsongkhapa, would have asserted. While self doesn't exist inherently, there still is definitely a distinction between self and object, and therefore of qualia (?), even if not inherent.<br /><br />I found this post in the first place because i am trying to come to better understanding about how tsongkhapa and relevant thinkers might conceive of the orientations and approaches taken in theories of sense perception (phil of mind? or is that phil of science?) -- theories like representationalism, sense-datum, higher-order theories of consciousness >> particularly self-representational higher-order theories of consciousness. self-representational higher-order theories of consciousness seem to be entirely wrapped up in questions considering the reflexivity of consciousness, subjectivity, how to make distinctions between the conscious and the unconscious, etc. -- questions which seemed extremely well addressed in Tsongkhapa's philosophy. I am curious how an enlightened person (and in this case, one who has fully realized the ins and outs of Tsongkhapa's philosophy) would view the above theories and what sort of advice such a person might give with respect to the perplexities faced in above issues.<br /><br />i get it that there might be confusion with respect to east-west divide, but am curious if there is not at least some amount of logic that might transcend that divide.<br />Can tsongkhapa's system be applied to systems whose ontology totally lacks any idea of an absolute or ultimate reality??? (such as self-representational systems, etc.)<br /><br />If, we just ACCEPT that tsongkhapa has full realization of reality, that enlightenment is highest, etc., then, he would know nature of subjectivity and it's appropriate relationship to objectivity. <br />some discussions about qualia, and above mentioned sense-perceptual theories, seem to delve into the area of "ultimate analysis," but it is hard to see exactly when they do that... and when they DO start do to that (go into ultimate analysis), perhaps there is when T's philosophy would come in handy (if we were to assume it was right)?<br /><br />maybe it is because.... even if we did use T's logic to negate, it wouldn't entirely work full-circle because the other person has to be INTERESTED I KNOWING THE ANSWER – i remember reading this somewhere... (in prasangika-madhyamaka). not entirely sure if you get what i mean by this, but this is sort of the conclusion that i'm settling on at this point. << this might be the reason that T's philosophy is not more widely utilized in western theories of sense-perceptual theories..??? and science of vis. perception..????stream.of.consciousnessnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3736365491401043672.post-88626498295055293492011-09-25T14:41:02.338-04:002011-09-25T14:41:02.338-04:00My personal view on Buddhists is not to dress in r...My personal view on Buddhists is not to dress in robes, and to live in a simple way. Buddha believe in "The Middle Way". "Live without desire, but don't desire not to desire." You can live what others would call a perfectly normal life and still consider yourself what others call a "buddhist"Lawless Philosophyhttp://lawlessphilosophy.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3736365491401043672.post-68633015009627240012011-08-14T22:17:06.076-04:002011-08-14T22:17:06.076-04:00I wonder whether the Indians took a simpler route-...I wonder whether the Indians took a simpler route- one not made explicit in their soteriological literature that has come down to us- to the affirmation that 'the metaphysical problem of the alleged existence of phenomenal properties as distinct from physical properties is a pseudoproblem'<br /><br />Speaking personally, the only reason I can think of for that metaphysical problem's existence is the notion that intuition is a path to truth. Deny this notion, deny that any 'synthetic' proposition has a claim to credence by itself, and the problem loses all interest for second order discourse as opposed to a first order, empirical, branch of psychology or neuro-science. <br /><br />Now, for the West, where Geometry held the highest prestige, the fact that Euclid's axioms seem common-sense gives rise to the notion that we can have intuition of synthetic judgements which are apriori true. We know this to be false- but a lot of bright Maths mavens didn't even after Einstein was proved right in 1919.<br /><br />Unlike the Greeks, Indian maths and grammar as far back as the 7th Century B.C seems to have been heavy on combinatorics and algorithmic methods. Why should this be the case? Well, things like balloting theory, Game theory, Probability, Statistics etc. use Combinatorics and discrete math rather than geometry. <br />*contd below)<br />In this context, if it was indeed the case that redistribution of land and cattle- but also dynastic feuds and Republican voting methods- by mixed strategy games (i.e. combining a bit of skill with a probabilistic element) then we can understand why the Mathematical paradigm for logic would focus on discrete maths- a field where spatio=temporal 'intuitions' are useless or misleading. In the Mahabharata- the great Indian epic- the Just King has to learn Probability and Game Theory to dispel his malaise. This did not mean simply how to load the dice. Rather it referred to 'mechanism design'- i.e. how to set up the game so as to get a socially positive result.<br />Now cellular automata are a good way to model this sort of thing. Since this is purely discrete maths it can be done laboriously with little 'high concept' stuff. Some board games themselves offer a template for the development of a cellular automata approach. Another point has to do with Vedic Melody (Sama) where the existence of microtones and 'missed beats' makes a geometric (harmonics) less useful. A further point is that if Indians really put discrete maths over continuous maths then, when trying to reconcile arithmetic with geometry, they'd quickly reach the conclusion Cantor did but without his rigor- viz. there is a distinction between countable and uncountable numbers (basic to Jain ontology). Further cellular automata, unlike the axiomatic method derived from Geometery, easily accommodate Dialethia, multi-valued logics and also dispel the horror vacui arising from the notion that if, even for a moment, nothing exists then nothing can exist because the causal chain is broken. However, with cellular automata, long periods can go by with nothing happening on the board. What the Husserlians call the principle of displayability- viz. the notion that ever term or concept must have a phenomenon it determines- no longer seems 'common sense'. <br />In Lord Buddha's case everything in his philosophy is already present in the declaration that only intentional conscious acts count. Interestingly, despite their divergent ontologies and epistemologies and mutual mud-slinging, all the other sects end up cashing out as something only verbally different.<br />However, political and economic changes meant that game theory ceased to be of vital importance and thus removed the original motivation for the emphasis on combinatorics and discrete maths. <br /><br />Instead, the movement was towards algebraic geometry which only very clever people understood and for which there was little demand outside the centers of astrological learning.<br />.windwheelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18099651877551933295noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3736365491401043672.post-49560677429677723682011-04-14T17:11:15.271-04:002011-04-14T17:11:15.271-04:00This is a fantastic article. I think it would also...This is a fantastic article. I think it would also be interesting to examine the Buddhist conception of rebirth in this light.samuraidrifterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02186801113012887869noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3736365491401043672.post-81582060052420174322011-04-11T09:40:03.537-04:002011-04-11T09:40:03.537-04:00Yeah, so I should probably go back and read your W...Yeah, so I should probably go back and read your Wittgenstein/Hume posts if I get time; perhaps I am not sufficiently familiar with their ideas. Indeed, Buddhism should not be a mystical Eastern practice - quite the opposite, it is very much a "real world" philosophy and there is very little esoteric about it. Nonetheless, I think it does notably make recognition that analysis of discrete (self-contained) philosophical problems can never truly represent reality. We're speaking generally here, but I do find Western philosophy strives for a theoretical "ultimate and complete theory" which from my understanding, Buddhism denies even the existence of. Perhaps we're just coming at the same thing from a different perspective. In any case, I rather like your explanation of the Buddhist view of the mind, as it elucidates its non-independence/separation from reality/the actual world. Perhaps I shall now be tempted to explore more Wittgenstein and get a clearer picture of this connection for myself!Noldorinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08729604801591094046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3736365491401043672.post-12997725739319904772011-04-11T08:23:45.487-04:002011-04-11T08:23:45.487-04:00Nolderlin, If you do come back and read the post, ...Nolderlin, If you do come back and read the post, you will find that the non-duality teaching you review is exactly the teaching I am drawing on. Our only disagreement is that i am sure that Wittgenstein (and Hume and in a way Berkeley) develop similar views. It is important not to "orientalize" Buddhist philosophy: as any good Buddhist would tell you, it's just people, thinking about the kinds of things people think about.Anderson Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18358008464457746997noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3736365491401043672.post-42217845682904072022011-04-10T20:01:43.301-04:002011-04-10T20:01:43.301-04:00Upfront admission: I only managed to skim this art...Upfront admission: I only managed to skim this article for now, though I may go back and read it in full.<br /><br />While your grasp of the "concepts" of Buddhism seems rather good in general, the 'spirit' of the article does however strike me as somewhat anti-Buddhist in spirit. That is, while recognising many of the core teachings of Buddha-Dharma, it stills strives to conceptualise and examine what is inherently 'just there' in many places. Although I may be wrong, the Buddhist thought with which I am familiar typically rejects qualia as something that can (or should) be analysed. It is inherent to existence at a very holistic level, which may point towards its (lack of) usefulness as a concept to Buddhists. With regards to the mind-body, neither monism nor dualism is embraced (nor entirely invalidated) - in quite a satisfying way, I would believe.<br /><br />In summary, without going into too much depth, I think it would prove an extremely difficult to task to properly relate any Western philosophers' theories (inc. Wittgenstein) to those of Buddhism, largely in that the goals of the two are rather different, and indeed, even modern Western philosophy makes some fundamental assumptions that may not be valid within Buddhist thought. Nonetheless, an interesting read (skim); I am glad to see someone exploring such points.Noldorinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08729604801591094046noreply@blogger.com