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

[Lplarry]

Annalisa,
As I try to grasp that which is not gaspable I reflect on *is-ness* and *is-ity*.
This is the difference between thing-in-itself AND no-thing-in-itself (is-ness) with the contrast no-ESSENTIAL-thing-in-itself (is-ity).
I am hearing Rein channel Dogen as I say *this* and in the next moment in this continuity *this* will meta/morph.

To Obama indicating that some aspects of Islam, Christianity, and Buddhism have side-stepped modernity, I return to Zygmunts focus on moral *blindness* as a loss of sensitivity.
Now does Obama’s version of modernity amplify sensitivity or is his version implicated in the techno logical loss of our human-ity?

Mike, not to just *go with the flow* or stand solid as the river torrent flows by. 
The notion of *disposition* as a moral *illumination* or *inspiration* or *ity* that addresses or speaks to the *blindness* of modern  liquid-ity. 

Is Buddha-ity a disposition generating the *truth* of impermanence that does not posit a structural permanence as its opposite.

The difference between structural and thematic ways/paths/dispositions.

Sent from my Windows 10 phone

From: HENRY SHONERD