[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Xmca-l] Re: Political constructions of selfvspoliticalconstructionsof identity



Annalisa,
Your questions to Rein seems to gather around the notion of (grasp/ity) in contrast to (graspable essence) or having a central center from which one perceives *things*. 

My question to Rein explores the notion of *having* a center from which one perceives  Buddha/nature or more precisely Buddha/ity.
My way of understanding where the center *exists* is everywhere in Buddha/ity. There is no *one* center from which the world is graspable but every *particular* entity is centered in its own way – as centered idio/syncratically.  This throws into relief the notion of structuring constructions.

Umberto Eco wrote a book on the metaphor of *tree* and *labyrinth* tracing the way Western (modes) of thought and meaning implicate the tree metaphor (roots, branches) as hierarchical *systems* of categories and classes and taxonomies
Something subsuming something else *under* it. The metaphor of under/standing through tree metaphors that grasp essence or nature as moving higher and lower in layers or levels or structures of classification.
This is all a *particular* (mode) of thought.

Rein exploring Buddha *nature* and *essence* indicates that these two notions are misunderstandings of Buddha existence which focuses attention on *ity* phenomena arising from *centers* that exist with every particular entity. Ity phenomena is idio/syncretic *dependent arising* which radically negates all notions of *independently arising* phenomena *in itself*.
I may be misreading what Rein is gesturing toward, but it is my attempt to follow Rein through Dogen.

The difference between modern/ism and modern/ity.  There is no essential graspable modern/ism but modern/ity exists and is  a particular (mode) of attention and focus interpreted through the *middle way* of Buddha ity.

Rein, if I have garbled your message then I hope my misunderstanding can lead to clearer understanding in your response.
 (ity) and (ism) are radically different approaches to phenomena arising. 
Your example of wood burning that  does not *change* to ashes is a particular challenge for Western notions of *change* that have the mode of evoking *trees* that generate types, kinds, categories, classes, taxonomy, with *higher* and *lower* super and sub *structures* that are *constructed*

The focus on particularity is not  independently arising phenomena but particular/ity has an idio/syncratic  *way* (mode) of becoming other than it is now. 
Centers exist with each dependently arising phenomena coming into existence but if no particular event arises then no center arises. 
 




Sent from my Windows 10 phone

From: Annalisa Aguilar
Sent: July 31, 2016 2:21 PM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Political constructions of selfvspoliticalconstructionsof identity

Hi Rein,


Thanks for the discussion. :)


Yes, but from what can change be measured? How do *you* detect change of any kind? There must be something static in order for change to be detected. I'm not arguing at all that there is no change or that everything is static. Even in Einstein's Theory of Relativity an stationary observer is required to detect change.


As far as "ity," it is an interesting concept, but if I am understanding you, it seems to possess something of an ethical challenge for my sensibility because it means that lying or psychopathology are acceptable states of being, unless you are using this theory of "ity" to explain how it is that a person can vacillate between one moral point of reference and another without any self-awareness, one mood to another.


Even though the weather patterns change, there are levels of predictability. Why be able to predict at all?


How can any pattern of change be detected at all if there is nothing stationary?


Also, why is it that there isn't constant mayhem and destruction, everywhere, all the time, forever and for all time; past, present, and future?


Regardless of what Aristotle said, something must be stationary to account for change and that stationary point is you. In what you describe, there is nothing holding it all together to measure by except you. Without an orientation point, it dissolves into moral relativity and ethical morass, and seems nihilistic. If that is the cosmology you see as obtaining, then how is there any determination of values at all?


Even if Trump is vacillating here and there between this and that form of ridicule, his body is relatively constant, his body doesn't suddenly shape shift into Liza Minelli and start singing broadway musicals, then into a pink flamingo eating crayfish and then back to The Donald we all know and love. :)


Or how about this? Why is there only one Donald and not 5? Sort of borg-like hovering around the podium waving his hands in that way he does but like a slide carousel of display?


How did Dogen detect the change, that is, when what was the firewood, underwent transition through time, turned into ashes, which was firewood no more? And why didn't the firewood turn into a potato chip, a cellphone, or an Apollo space capsule instead?


What is your definition of change? If you don't mind sharing. :)


Kind regards,


Annalisa