[Xmca-l] Re: Thought and language as oscillating and pulsing [or not]

[Annalisa Aguilar]

Vandy,

Message received! Ictus and all! 

Emphasis upon the AND (i.e., not the NOT).  :)

Annalisa


Monday, January 26, 2015 4:29 PM, valerie A. Wilkinson <vwilk@inf.shizuoka.ac.jp> wrote:

Annalisa,
I have to say something more!
Along with the "neti neti" methodology, we can oscillate in the diastolic
space afforded by the "tat tvam asi"
It's not that, no. Still, well, you are that. The diastolic flickering of
life at the interstices is where it's happening.
Vandy

-----Original Message-----
From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
[mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Annalisa Aguilar
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 7:58
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Thought and language as oscillating and pulsing [or
not]

Yes, Martin,

The BBC radio show on Phenomenology was really good! Thank you!

Unfortunately, as one of the guests pointed out, Heidegger only points to
epochs of Western Civilization; I find it interesting that Heidgger himself
wanted to "return to the source" and yet could not make a leap to examine
Eastern thought, if only to use his methods to reveal a genealogy of
thought, or better, a genealogy of beingness.

That might be because he didn't know there was a there there, or because he
didn't care about Eastern thought, who knows?

The notion of "gap" might be similar to Buddhism's "nothingness," if only
that it employs negation as Sartre's existentialism does. My scholarship on
Buddhism is spotty, but they have a concept of "sunya" (pronounced "shunya")
that means "emptiness." Oddly, this word is a Sanskrt that also means
"pregnant" or "fullness" and I suppose adherents of Buddhism and Vedic
thought have been debating the meaning of sunya since the inception of
Buddhism.

What I found fascinating is that Heidegger after deconstructing beingness in
his own way, was not able to reconstruct it (as the radio guest said, Being
and Time was left unfinished). If there is an independent existence in which
supports these epochs of beingness, then what is that like and where is it
located?

For something to change, there must be a witness of change, something that
is constant. If human consciousness is indeed changing, then there must be
something independent of human consciousness within us to detect this
change. Perhaps this is what Heidegger was getting at. My intuition feels
this is the case, but I confess that I'm not of the diamond mind with regard
to my Heidegger scholarship.

In Vedic thought, there is a method of "neti-neti" which is quite easy to do
and is a part of inquiry, but only the start of inquiry. The harder part is
what might be considered, from a place of not knowing, or a position of
ignorance, a reconstruction, and I see that thinkers in the West had/have
this same problem. I have learned it isn't a reconstruction. But it's not
something I can explain easily, because my understanding is sketchy about
it, but I can say without a doubt there is something there worthy of
examination. I could make an attempt to explain it, but as you must all
know, teaching something is an entirely different task from understanding
something. Not being able to teach something doesn't mean one doesn't
understand something. So for now I'll just offer that there is something
relevant there. That there is a there there, and I'm not talking about
Oakland, California. :)

You will be shocked to learn that is more I could say, but I will refrain
for now.

Kind regards,

Annalisa