[Xmca-l] Re: Political constructions of self vs political constructions of identity

[mike cole]

your focus on change, Annalisa, seems parallel to Bauman's contrast of
solid and liquid. That contrast, in
turn, seems very similar to the notions of two kinds of Buddhist thinking
described earlier. Carried away by the flow or standing fast in the torrent?

very generative discussion.
mike
mike

On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 5:15 PM, Annalisa Aguilar <annalisa@unm.edu> wrote:

> Hello!
>
>
> Great discussion. :)
>
>
> I do not think I am defining change *as opposed to* stability. I am
> defining change from what doesn't change, in that something must not be
> changing in order to perceive change. That can include relative "stability"
> and relative "change."
>
>
> If you care to use "impermanence" then my question is, how do you define
> impermanence?
>
>
> There is one thing that is always consistent no matter what changes or
> doesn't change, and that is existence. But *only if* you consider existence
> as something that comes before a thing is a thing.
>
>
> It is before we name a thing. This is where the detection of existence is
> misconstrued as having to do with a word or a name. The thing is before it
> is named, and this is true. But whatever makes up a thing is (exists)
> before the thing is a thing, which means before it is named.
>
>
> So even if you have your chariot and you remove all at makes up the
> chariot-complex, there is still a need of wheels and sundry chariot parts
> that exist first in order for the chariot to be (become) one, otherwise it
> would be a banana, or anything not a chariot. :)
>
>
> There is always something that exists before a thing is itself. And even
> if you remove all the things that make up the chariot, there is still the
> space that exists in which had been in terms of location. If you can show
> me a chariot without space and without time, I should like to see that
> chariot in its existence. (I wonder if this is where Plato's ideas derive,
> not sure, but... that's a digression).
>
>
> We cannot eliminate existence itself. Although apparently the sophist did
> try! In this case, existence is that "third point of view" that is all
> points of view and not a single one, it cannot be arbitrary because to be
> arbitrary is to exclude this point from all others even if it is chosen by
> chance. If we include all points, this has to be existence.
>
>
> So existence is not a singular point in time and space, because existence
> pervades all. Anywhere in the universe, space is and time is, and so in the
> apparent universe we can remove all things in it, and existence remains.
>
>
> All that is in the universe is just manifesting existence in an infinite
> number of names and forms, changing infinitely in time.
>
>
> This holds true for the Buddhists, as I understand (though I'm not up on
> my Buddhist studies and would defer to you on that). The problem, as the
> thread began, has to do with what is self and what is identity and how are
> those "constructed." How do we differentiate from what is self and what is
> identity?
>
>
> I believe it began with having to do with categories, and I was making a
> distinction between the kinds of categories that Trump makes and the kinds
> that Clinton makes. Both category sets, I hope I've been able to
> illustrate, are dubious. For me Clinton's categories are easier to tolerate
> than the dichotomous categories presented by Trump (Trump - category 1 vs
> not-Trump - category 2).
>
>
> Unless I did not quite get it, so please correct me if that is the case,
> you had offered the notion of change (I think) to isolate what makes Trump
> trump-like and what makes Clinton clinton-like. Then you introduced an
> intriguing way to look at this from a conceptual notion of "ity". As a
> becoming-ness that prevails in a particular person to be who that person
> ends up being (until the person becomes someone else as-if in increments).
> Did I get that right? That becoming isn't a static quality like the blue of
> the sky, or a rock being hard, but a process of change (or impermanence) at
> a particular point in time.
>
>
> And so this is why I asked you for your definition of change, and offered
> my own understanding of change, as a point of reference. If I may point out
> (light-heartedly), then you changed the word from "change" to
> "impermanence"! :)
>
>
> So, ok, now I'm asking what is your definition of impermanence?
>
>
> Also, I agree that Buddha mind (as you describe) is well worth having.
>
>
> "Buddhi" is the sanskrit word for "mind" as a particular aspect, so... in
> a way it is redundant to say "mind mind" :)
>
>
> "Buddhi" is that aspect of the mind that is decisive. To be awake to the
> reality of what is, in the present moment, right here, right now, is the
> only way to be. :)
>
>
> Otherwise... it's Trump's mind for all!
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
> Annalisa
>



-- 

It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object
that creates history. Ernst Boesch