<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">I want to thank Alex for his insightful comments and questions regarding my contribution concerning the nature of the self, with regards to Nagarjuna’s reductionism. I even like Alex's pun on my name, since there is something unbinding and liberating about Nagarjuna’s ruthless undermining of all forms of metaphysical certainty. I also like his reference to Thomas Traherne’s wonderful poem My Spirit, especially the line That Being Greatest which doth Nothing Seem! Alex argues that Traherne<span style="font-size: 14.6667px;"> is suggesting that being surrounded and within the 'strange extended orb of joy' is a necessary precondition for our experience of apparent individuality within the world of phenomenological experience. I would agree with this idea, especially </span><span style="font-size: 15px;">within</span><span style="font-size: 14.6667px;"> the context of Husserl</span><span style="font-size: 15px;">’</span><span style="font-size: 14.6667px;">s phenomenological reduction. It requires the </span><span style="font-size: 15px;">bracketing</span><span style="font-size: 14.6667px;"> off, or the </span><span style="font-size: 15px;">withholding</span><span style="font-size: 14.6667px;"> of judgment, regarding our examination of </span><span style="font-size: 15px;">the natural world, replacing it with analysis of our experience of it instead. The eidetic reduction, in turn, focuses on the nature of mental objects, </span><span style="color: rgb(37, 37, 37); font-family: sans-serif; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">with the intention of removing what is perceived, and leaving only what is required in its place. (The notion of individuality would indeed be an example of such a mental object.) </span><span style="color: rgb(37, 37, 37); font-family: sans-serif; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">For Nagarjuna, it is not merely sentient beings</span><span style="color: rgb(37, 37, 37); font-family: sans-serif; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> that are "selfless" or non-substantial, however; all phenomena are without any i</span><span style="color: rgb(37, 37, 37); font-family: sans-serif; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">nherent existence and thus without any underlying essence. They are thus </span><i style="color: rgb(37, 37, 37); font-family: sans-serif;">empty</i><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font color="#252525" face="sans-serif"> of being independently existent. While Nagarjuna does indeed seem to be trying to show us how to </font></span><font color="#252525" face="sans-serif">silence our intellects, Husserl seems to be trying to silence our naive belief in the authority of isolated empirical evidence. </font>We are thus mistaken when we uncritically accept the necessary implications of denotative experience without further consideration of connotative experience as well. Denotation has limits while connotation does not.<div><br></div><div>Steve Bindeman</div><div><br></div><div><br><div><div>On May 2, 2016, at 3:01 PM, Alex Hankey <<a href="mailto:alexhankey@gmail.com">alexhankey@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr">Dear Steve, <div><br></div><div>What you have written is so supreme and beautiful! </div><div>Might I suggest a Deed-Poll application to </div><div>Un-Bind-a-man?</div><div><br></div><div>After reading your comments, I had to take time out and simply sit in "Silence", and let my mind be filled with the 'energy' with which your words had both filled it and emptied it. </div><div><br></div><div>And currently being with Indian friends in San Jose, I did so in front of the apartment sacred space, which is adorned with a Buddha, a Radha-Krishna, a Ganesha, the family Guru and other such pictures. </div><div><br></div><div>As regards this discussion of phenomenology, it seems to me that your marvellous contribution stands both inside phenomenological experience AND beyond it, and what takes human awareness to those more permanent states of Being.</div><div><br></div><div>May I request Maxine who seems to me more experienced in technical phenomenological analysis of language and expression than any of us to see how well Steve's contribution conforms to Husserlian requirements to be considered a valid expression within the boundaries / limitations of phenomenology? I myself certainly do not feel adequately empowered to do so in such company as Pedro and his Fis have arranged for us. </div><div><br></div><div>Further: </div><div><br></div><div>RE: ... <span style="color:rgb(39,39,39);font-size:12.8px;text-align:justify">silence becomes a conduit to enlightenment. One recognizes that the use of concepts, and the use of reason to work with concepts and to help distinguish between true and false views, and the very idea of having views in the first place, are all highly problematic in the sense that they are but imperfect manifestations of true reality.</span><span style="color:rgb(39,39,39);font-size:12.8px;text-align:justify"> </span> </div><div><br></div><div>ME: Amen - Omayne - Om / Aum </div><div>Is not the Role of Zen to silence the intellect so that the person becomes open to Sartori?</div><div><br></div><div>May I add the following: one of the most wonderful statements of realization in the English language can be found in the work of the 17th century poet and essayist, Thomas Traherne, in his poem, My Spirit, which I append in full below. </div><div><br></div><div>Note particularly the following sequence from successive stanzas: I have put in bold those from stanzas 5 & 6 to emphasize that for me these statements constitute the heart of the poem, and that I equate them with the position of Advaita Vedanta - though Steve is more than welcome to state how he relates them, and any other part of the poem, to the position of Nagarjuna (or not so?). </div><div><br></div><div>Again, I regard these statements as the culmination of phenomenological experience, and in that sense of the 'phenomenology of life'. In one of his early books, Deepak Chopra quipped that life is not a material process with an occasional spiritual experience, but rather a spiritual process with an occasional spiritual experience. </div><div><br></div><div>Excerpts from 'My Spirit' by Thomas Traherne. Full poem below the quoted sections. </div><div><br></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">1. My Naked Simple Life was I</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> That Act so strongly shined</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> Upon the Earth, the Sea, the Sky,</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> It was the substance of my mind,</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> The sense itself was I.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.6667px"> ............</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> The Thought that Springs</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">Therefrom's itself. ............</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> ...................</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> In its own Centre is a Sphere</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> Not shut up here, but every Where.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><br></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">2. ..............................</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> </span><span style="font-size:11pt">for tis more voluble than Light</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> Which can put on ten thousand forms</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> Being adorned with what itself adorns.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><br></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">3. ................................</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">And every Object in my Soul a thought</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> Begot, or was; I could not tell</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> Whether the things did there</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> Themselves appear,</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">Which in my <i>spirit </i>truly seemed to dwell,</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> Or whether my conforming Mind</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> Were not alone even all that shined.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><br></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">4. But yet of this I was most sure</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> ...........................................</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">That all my Mind was wholey Everywhere</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">What e'er it was, twas ever wholey there;</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><br></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">5. O Joy! O Wonder, and Delight!</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> O Sacred Mystery!</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> My Soul a Spirit infinite!</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> .....................................</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><b>That Being Greatest, which doth Nothing seem!</b></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">Why, twas my All, I nothing did esteem</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">But that alone. A Strange Mysterious Sphere!</span></p><div><span style="font-size:11pt"> </span><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><b>6. A Strange Extended Orb of Joy</b></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><b> Proceeding from within,</b></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><b> Which .......</b></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><b> ......................,</b></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><b> ......... did Every way</b></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><b>Dilate itself even in an instant, and</b></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><b>Like an Indivisible Centre Stand</b></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><b>At once Surrounding all Eternity</b>.</span></p></div><div><br></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">7. O Wondrous Self! O Sphere of Light,</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> O Sphere of Joy most fair;</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> O Act, O Power infinite;</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> O subtle and unbounded Air!</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> O Living Orb of Sight!</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">Thou which within me art, yet Me! Thou Eye</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">And Temple of His Whole Infinity!</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><br></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">N.B. Please note in the last line quoted from Stanza 6, the use of the word '<b>Eternity</b>'. The 'strange extended orb of joy' does not simply surround 'all space', nor even 'all </span><span style="font-size:14.6667px">this universe</span><span style="font-size:11pt">' or 'all </span><span style="font-size:14.6667px">space-time', but rather 'all Eternity' which I take to mean, 'all possible space times'. He seems to denote (connote?) that being surrounded and within the 'strange extended orb of joy' is a necessary precondition for our experience of apparent individuality within the world of phenomenological experience. (Please say if you disagree, and /or what grounds there may be for disagreement. If none, should we send it to Daniel Dennett?!)</span><span style="font-size:11pt"> </span></p></div><div><br></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11pt"> MY SPIRIT </span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11pt"> by Thomas Traherne</span></b></p><div><span style="font-size:11pt"> </span><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">1. My Naked Simple Life was I</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> That Act so strongly shined</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> Upon the Earth, the Sea, the Sky,</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> It was the substance of my mind,</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> The sense itself was I.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">I
felt no Dross nor Matter in my Soul,</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">No Brims
nor Borders as in a Bowl </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> We see. My Essence was Capacity</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> That felt all things.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> The Thought that Springs</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">Therefrom's
itself. It has no other Wings</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> To Spread abroad, nor Eyes to see,</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> Nor Hands distinct to feel,</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> Nor Knees to Kneel:</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">But
being Simple like the deity</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> In its own Centre is a Sphere</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> Not shut up here, but every Where.</span></p><div> <br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">2. It Acts not from a Centre to</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> Its Object as remote,</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> But present is, when it doth view,</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> Being with the Being it doth note.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> Whatever it doth do,</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">It
doth not by another Engine work,</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">But
by itself, which in the Act doth lurk.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">Its
Essence is Transformed into a True</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> And perfect Act.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> And so Exact</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">Hath
God appeared in this Mysterious Fact,</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> That tis all Eye, all Act, all Sight,</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> And what it please can be,</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> Not only see,</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">Or
do; for tis more voluble than Light</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> Which can put on ten thousand forms</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> Being adorned with what itself adorns.</span></p><div><span style="font-size:11pt"> </span><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">3. This made me present evermore</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> With whatsoe'er I saw.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> An Object, if it were before</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> My Eye, was by Dame Nature's law</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> Within my Soul. Her Store</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">Was
all at once within me; all her Treasures</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">Were
my Immediate and Internal Pleasures</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">Substantial
Joys, which did inform my Mind.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> With all she wrought</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> My soul was fraught.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">And
every Object in my Soul a thought</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> Begot, or was; I could not tell</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> Whether the things did there</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> Themselves appear,</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">Which
in my <i>spirit </i>truly seemed to dwell,</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> Or whether my conforming Mind</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> Were not alone even all that shined.</span></p><div><span style="font-size:11pt"> </span><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">4. But yet of this I was most sure</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> That at the utmost length</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> (So worthy was it to endure)</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> My Soul could best Express its Strength.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> It was so indivisible and pure,</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">That
all my Mind was wholey Everywhere</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">What
e'er it was, twas ever wholey there;</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">The
Sun ten thousand legions off:</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> The utmost star,</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> Though seen from far,</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">Was
present in the Apple of my Eye.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> There was my Sight, my Life, my Sense,</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> My Substance and my Mind</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> My Spirit Shined</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">Even
there, not by a Transient Influence.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> The Act was Immanent, yet there.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> The Thing remote, yet felt even here.</span></p><div><span style="font-size:11pt"> </span><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">5. O Joy! O Wonder, and Delight!</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> O Sacred Mystery!</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> My Soul a Spirit infinite!</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> An Image of the Deity!</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> A pure Substantial Light!</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">That
Being Greatest, which doth Nothing seem!</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">Why,
twas my All, I nothing did esteem</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">But
that alone. A Strange Mysterious Sphere!</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> A deep Abyss</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> That sees and is</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">The
only Proper Place, and Bower of Bliss.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> To its Creator tis so near</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> In Love and Excellence</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> In Life and Sense,</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">In
Greatness Worth and Nature; And so Dear;</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> In it without Hyperbole,</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> The Son and Friend of God we see.</span></p><div><span style="font-size:11pt"> </span><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">6. A Strange Extended Orb of Joy</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> Proceeding from within,</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> Which did on every side convey</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> Itself, and being nigh of kin,</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> To God did Every way</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">Dilate
itself even in an instant, and</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">Like
an Indivisible Centre Stand</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">At
once Surrounding all Eternity.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> Twas not a sphere</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> Yet did appear</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">One
infinite. Twas somewhat everywhere,</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> And though it had a Power to see</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> Far more, yet still it shined</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> And was a Mind</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">Exerted
for it was infinity</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> Twas not a Sphere, yet twas one Power</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> Invisible, and yet a Bower.</span></p><div> <br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">7. O Wondrous Self! O Sphere of Light,</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> O Sphere of Joy most fair;</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> O Act, O Power infinite;</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> O subtle and unbounded Air!</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> O Living Orb of Sight!</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">Thou
which within me art, yet Me! Thou Eye</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">And
Temple of His Whole Infinity!</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">O
what a World are Thou! A World within!</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> All Things appear</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> All Objects are</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">Alive
in Thee! Supersubstantial, Rare,</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> Above themselves, and nigh of Kin</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> To those pure Things we find</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> In his Great Mind</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">Who
made the World! Though now eclipsed by Sin!</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> There they are useful and Divine,</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> Exalted, there they ought to Shine.</span></p><div><span style="font-size:11pt"> </span><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">P.S. RE: </span><span style="font-size:11pt">And every Object in my Soul a thought</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> Begot, or was; </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><b>Question for Soren Brier</b>: is this not essentially </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">an </span><span style="font-size:11pt">expression of Cybersemiotics?</span></p></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 2 May 2016 at 09:03, steven bindeman <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:bindeman1@verizon.net" target="_blank">bindeman1@verizon.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word">Unless I am misunderstanding Nagarjuna, he uses a form of reductionism to show how all metaphysical positions are untenable. To illustrate this point in further detail, I will provide the rest of my section on his thinking from my manuscript on silence:<div><div><br></div><div><div style="margin:0px;text-align:justify;color:rgb(39,39,39)"><span style="letter-spacing:0px">Following the implications of the middle way, Nagarjuna uses what is called the “four-cornered-negation,” whereby he refutes any specific idea by disproving or negating all four of its appearances: as being, as nonbeing, as both, and as neither. Belief in any of these four cases is an extreme thesis in his view and must be transcended by a higher synthesis. In fact, Nagarjuna’s philosophy can be seen as an attempt to “deconstruct” in this way all systems of thought which analyze the world in terms of fixed substances and essences. Since emptiness is in fact the negation of each of the four appearances of any idea or concept, if it can be shown to be true in all four instances, then the original idea, whatever it might be, will have been disproved. By saying that all concepts are false, then, the quality of emptiness is pointed to as their essential nature. Since all concepts are false, emptiness is in all of them. (This refers to the <i>being </i>of emptiness.) The truth of emptiness is, however, the same as the unreality of all existing elements, which is to say that the <i>nonbeing</i> of the phenomenal world is also emptiness. But Nirvana is also the truth, so Nirvana is also the same as emptiness and the same as the impermanence of the phenomenal world (referring to <i>both</i> the being and nonbeing of emptiness). Furthermore, the Buddha-nature is the ultimate reality of each person, and thus the Buddha-nature – and Buddha himself – is empty. Now we may add that since Nirvana is enlightenment, enlightenment is emptiness too. Nagarjuna is here taking the logic of Conditioned Arising a step further in order to argue that nothing, not even Nirvana, is unconditioned. Hence the goal of Buddhist practice in his view is not merely to attain Nirvana but to realize emptiness. Thus Nirvana and impermanence are not two separate realities, but make up together a field of emptiness which is itself not another superior reality but something that is empty of itself. (This last state refers to the fourth case of negation, <i>neither</i> being, nor nonbeing, nor both.)</span><span style="font-size:9.3px;letter-spacing:0px"><sup></sup></span></div><div style="margin:0px;text-align:justify;color:rgb(39,39,39);min-height:17px"><span style="letter-spacing:0px"></span><br></div><div style="margin:0px;text-align:justify;color:rgb(39,39,39)"><span style="letter-spacing:0px">With all of these positions pushed beyond the limit of their sustainability, Nagarjuna cancelled the existing definitions of reality and the whole edifice of Early Buddhism was undermined and smashed.</span><span style="font-size:9.3px;letter-spacing:0px"><sup></sup></span><span style="letter-spacing:0px"> In the process of dismantling all metaphysical and epistemological positions, one is led to the only viable conclusion, which is that all things, concepts, and persons lack a fixed essence — because otherwise they would not be capable of change, and only change can explain why people live, die, are reborn, suffer, and are capable of becoming enlightened in the first place.</span><span style="font-size:9.3px;letter-spacing:0px"><sup></sup></span><span style="letter-spacing:0px"> </span></div><div style="margin:0px;text-align:justify;color:rgb(39,39,39);min-height:17px"><span style="letter-spacing:0px"></span><br></div><div style="margin:0px;text-align:justify;color:rgb(39,39,39)"><span style="letter-spacing:0px">Nagarjuna’s explanation of the meaning of emptiness itself provides further clarification. Its two dimensions of meaning include the idea that emptiness is “the situation in which conditioned existence arises and dissipates, and thus it applies to practical everyday experience,” and secondly it is “the situation of freedom from suffering, the highest awareness.”</span><span style="font-size:9.3px;letter-spacing:0px"><sup></sup></span><span style="letter-spacing:0px"> The latter formulation is the conclusion of Buddha’s Four Noble Truths. Since both interpretations of emptiness are dependent co-originations, both include the theme of both the arising and the cessation of pain, which combines Buddha’s first Noble Truth, namely that life consists in suffering, with his second Noble Truth, that the cause of suffering is found in human desire, along with the third Noble Truth, that suffering ends when desire ceases, which leads finally to the the fourth Noble Truth, which is that desire ceases only when the eightfold path is cultivated.This eightfold path involves the understanding and practice of the following activities: right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration, right attitude, and right view. Following this path successfully leads to emptiness.</span><span style="font-size:9.3px;letter-spacing:0px"><sup></sup></span></div><div style="margin:0px;text-align:justify;color:rgb(39,39,39);min-height:17px"><span style="letter-spacing:0px"></span><br></div><div style="margin:0px;text-align:justify;color:rgb(39,39,39)"><span style="letter-spacing:0px">Once an individual is able by following this path to achieve emptiness and detachment from the world, he or she will recognize how silence is the appropriate response to all metaphysical problems. In this way, silence becomes a conduit to enlightenment. One recognizes that the use of concepts, and the use of reason to work with concepts and to help distinguish between true and false views, and the very idea of having views in the first place, are all highly problematic in the sense that they are but imperfect manifestations of true reality. But on the other hand, they are all necessary steps in a process. This perspective, voiced in the 2nd century by Nagarjuna, closely anticipates Wittgenstein’s propositions at the close of his <i>Tractatus</i>: </span></div><div style="margin:0px;text-align:justify;color:rgb(39,39,39);min-height:17px"><span style="letter-spacing:0px"></span><br></div><div style="margin:0px;text-align:justify;font-size:12px;color:rgb(39,39,39)"><span style="letter-spacing:0px">6.54 My propositions serve as elucidations in the following way: anyone who understands me eventually recognizes them as nonsensical, when he has used them — as steps — to climb beyond them. (He must, so to speak, throw away the ladder after he has climbed up it.)</span></div><div style="margin:0px;text-align:justify;font-size:12px;color:rgb(39,39,39);min-height:14px"><span style="letter-spacing:0px"></span><br></div><div style="margin:0px;text-align:justify;font-size:12px;color:rgb(39,39,39)"><span style="letter-spacing:0px">7. What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence.</span><span style="font-size:8px;letter-spacing:0px"><sup></sup></span></div><div style="margin:0px;text-align:justify;font-size:12px;color:rgb(39,39,39);min-height:14px"><br></div><div style="margin:0px;text-align:justify;font-size:12px;color:rgb(39,39,39);min-height:14px"><br></div><div style="margin:0px;text-align:justify;color:rgb(39,39,39);min-height:14px"><span style="font-size:12px">I</span> find Nagarjuna’s reasoning to be reductive because he demonstrates how, whether you begin with a belief in the truth of either identity or difference, in either case you are led by implication to an untenable position. Since both notions are thus "empty of self-essence;” they can exist only together and not separatel<span style="font-size:12px">y. </span><span style="letter-spacing:0px;font-size:12px;letter-spacing:0px"></span></div></div><div><br></div><div>Steve Bindeman</div><div><div class="h5"><div><div><br></div><div>On May 2, 2016, at 4:34 AM, Alex Hankey <<a href="mailto:alexhankey@gmail.com" target="_blank">alexhankey@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr">It is good to note that Reductionism is not appropriate, <div>not in this particular context, maybe not in any context. </div><div><br></div><div><font>Most of the oriental philosophers were not aware of any</font></div><div>reductionist approach, since their teachers were purely</div><div>concerned with integrated and holistic approaches to </div><div>understanding and solving any problem. </div><div><br></div><div>Hence their attitudes to understanding experience" </div><div>the question of reductionism does not enter.</div><div>Thank you. </div><div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 30 April 2016 at 22:15, Francesco Rizzo <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:13francesco.rizzo@gmail.com" target="_blank">13francesco.rizzo@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><font>Search Alex e Stan, Search Tutti,</font><div><font><font>I fully share the epistemological philosophical-scientific approach of Alex and logical-mathematical set theory and / or the "hierarchy of subsumption evolving" Stan. </font><font>However, reductionism does not satisfy neither pays.</font></font></div><div><font>A collective embrace the FIS network.</font></div><span><font color="#888888">Francesco</font></span></div><div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote"><font>2016-05-01 0:38 GMT+02:00 Alex Hankey </font><span dir="ltr"><font><font><</font></font><a href="mailto:alexhankey@gmail.com" target="_blank"><font><font>alexhankey@gmail.com</font></font></a><font><font>></font></font></span><font>:</font><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><font>It is good to see the discussion developing into deep considerations of the history (histories?) of the metaphysical understanding of the nature of the self, the soul, and the world(s) of experience, including the material universe in which it finds itself. </font><div><br></div><div><font>I do not claim to have any great expertise in understanding Nagarjuna's approach, but we have to realise that both he and the great exponent of Vedanta, Adishankara, also known as Shankaracharya (meaning teacher of liberation), are said to have used almost identical formulations, albeit with a different emphasis. While Nagarjuna used the concept of emptiness as the foundation, Adishankara stayed within the traditional Vedic scheme where 'fullness' or completeness / wholeness is regarded as fundamental. </font></div><div><br></div><div><font>While it is certainly true that to experience the 'self' clearly, all mental content has to allowed to settle down and fade away (one aspect of 'Chitta Vritti Nirodha', a definition of Yoga) the condition for maintaining that stably is that the subtle energy, prana (life-breath), should be enlivened fully, which is why the enlivenment (ayama) of prana i.e. pranaayama (normal spelling pranayama, in which the long 'a' is not explicitly emphasised) is a fundamental Yoga exercise, usually practised before meditation (Dhyana) practices in which the mind moves to its empty state (samadhi). As can be seen, increasing the prana (life-energy) to a state of fullness is thus an integral part of attaining a stable state of pure consciousness (samadhi). </font></div><div><br></div><div><font>It is the fullness of the state of prana that stabilizes the mind from influences that might bring it out of samadhi. In particular, various emotions can block the flows of subtle energies (several websites explain this in detail e.g. Google on acupuncture meridians - emotions). Fullness of prana is thus considered equivalent to emotional stability, which requires balanced positive emotions and feelings. </font></div><div><br></div><div><font>Both Nagarjuna and Adishankara are then concerned with how it is that all-that-exists emerges from the original absolute. Nagarjuna evidently shows that all things including all sentient beings have a 'dependent' existence - they do not exist in and of themselves. Adishankara on the other hand uses Vedic physics and metaphysics to trace how they emerge at various levels of perception. The essence of his argument is to show how the mental sensory apparatus came from the original source / Absolute, and thus how all objects of sensation can be traced back there. </font></div><div><br></div><div><font>In modern terms, all things we have ever experientially encountered are quantum fields, and all quantum fields seem to have emerged from the Big Bang via the process of symmetry breaking at its source - the inflationary process. But symmetry breaking is an instability, and when one inspects the information states that that instability supports, they turn out to have a similar structure to O=======>, the one proposed in the material that was distributed. </font></div><div><br></div><div><font>I feel that the role and significance of instabilities in the physical world, particularly life processes, has not been adequately expounded and that we may only be beginning to understand them. </font></div><div><br></div><div><font>I hope this helps. </font></div><div><br></div><div><font>Alex</font></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote"><font>On 30 April 2016 at 08:18, steven bindeman </font><span dir="ltr"><font><font><</font></font><a href="mailto:bindeman1@verizon.net" target="_blank"><font><font>bindeman1@verizon.net</font></font></a><font><font>></font></font></span><font> wrote:</font><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><font>I hope the following passage I’ve written on Nagarjuna will be of use for this discussion on the nature of self. The passage is from a manuscript I’ve just completed on silence and postmodernism.</font><div><br></div><div><div style="margin:0px;text-align:justify;color:rgb(66,66,66)"><span style="letter-spacing:0.0px">Nagarjuna’s thinking is deeply conversant with silence and with the use of paradox as well. For him, contradictory things are never “either/or,” but are always “both/and.” Refusing to choose between opposing metaphysical problems, he would recommend responding through silence instead. For an example of his reductive reasoning process, consider the following: </span></div><div style="margin:0px;text-align:justify;color:rgb(66,66,66);min-height:17px"><span style="letter-spacing:0.0px"></span><br></div><div style="margin:0px;text-align:justify;font-size:12px;color:rgb(66,66,66)"><span style="letter-spacing:0.0px">Whatever is dependently co-arisen</span></div><div style="margin:0px;text-align:justify;font-size:12px;color:rgb(66,66,66)"><span style="letter-spacing:0.0px">That is explained to be emptiness.</span></div><div style="margin:0px;text-align:justify;font-size:12px;color:rgb(66,66,66)"><span style="letter-spacing:0.0px">That, being a dependent designation,</span></div><div style="margin:0px;text-align:justify;font-size:12px;color:rgb(66,66,66)"><span style="letter-spacing:0.0px">Is itself the middle way.</span></div><div style="margin:0px;text-align:justify;font-size:12px;color:rgb(66,66,66);min-height:14px"><span style="letter-spacing:0.0px"></span><br></div><div style="margin:0px;text-align:justify;font-size:12px;color:rgb(66,66,66)"><span style="letter-spacing:0.0px">Something that is not dependently arisen</span></div><div style="margin:0px;text-align:justify;font-size:12px;color:rgb(66,66,66)"><span style="letter-spacing:0.0px">Such a thing does not exist.</span></div><div style="margin:0px;text-align:justify;font-size:12px;color:rgb(66,66,66)"><span style="letter-spacing:0.0px">Therefore a nonempty thing</span></div><div style="margin:0px;text-align:justify;font-size:12px;color:rgb(66,66,66)"><span style="letter-spacing:0.0px">Does not exist. </span><span style="font-size:9.3px;letter-spacing:0px"><sup></sup></span></div><div style="margin:0px;text-align:justify;color:rgb(39,39,39);min-height:17px"><span style="letter-spacing:0.0px"></span><br></div><div style="margin:0px;text-align:justify;color:rgb(39,39,39)"><span style="letter-spacing:0.0px">Nagarjuna is criticizing the common paradoxical occurrence that when we attribute abstract concepts (“something that does not dependently exist”) like emptiness to the status of “reality” (like we do with the Platonic forms), then they seem to be applicable to everything, while on the other hand when we emphasize instead the individual uniqueness and particularity of any one thing (“whatever is dependently co-arisen”), this emphasis makes it impossible to categorize its likeness with other things. Nagarjuna’s point is that the abstract concept of emptiness and the concrete nature of any particular empty thing are in fact codependent. He calls this codependency “Conditioned Arising.” His “middle way” resolves the paradox by viewing neither the abstract idea nor the concrete thing as having a separate reality — both instead are characterized as “‘thought constructions’ founded on experience.’ As such, they are not absolutely real or absolutely unreal. …This middle path could thus be adopted in understanding all forms of experience, whether they be linguistic, social, political, moral, or religious.”</span><span style="font-size:9.3px;letter-spacing:0px"><sup></sup></span></div><div style="margin:0px;text-align:justify;color:rgb(39,39,39);min-height:17px"><span style="letter-spacing:0.0px"></span><br></div><div style="margin:0px;text-align:justify;color:rgb(39,39,39)"><span style="letter-spacing:0.0px">Another way of approaching an understanding of the middle way has to do with recognizing it as constituting a resolution of the identity/difference problem. According to standard Buddhist doctrine the most dangerous false view possible is the belief in a permanent, independent self (also commonly referred to as the concept of identity). This notion of self is symptomatic of our deepest fears, concerning things like death and the possibility of our personal nonexistence. The concept of difference, which is the other side of the problem, is the belief that nothing is real; it also asserts the absence of all identities. This position would lead to the most mundane things becoming unintelligible. Nagarjuna’s solution to this problem is his assertion that neither identity nor difference is real. Both notions, when seen properly, are “empty” of self-essence. They can exist only together and not separately.</span><span style="font-size:9.3px;letter-spacing:0px"><sup></sup></span><span style="letter-spacing:0.0px"> Nagarjuna’s way of resolving this problem, by pointing to the interdependency of identity and difference, is remarkably similar to the one proposed by Merleau-Ponty many years later.</span></div></div><div style="margin:0px;text-align:justify;color:rgb(39,39,39)"><span style="letter-spacing:0.0px"><br></span></div><div style="margin:0px;text-align:justify;color:rgb(39,39,39)"><span style="letter-spacing:0.0px">Steve Bindeman</span></div><div><span style="letter-spacing:0.0px"><br></span></div></div><br><font>______________________________</font><font>_________________</font><br><font><font>
Fis mailing list</font><a href="mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es" target="_blank"><font>Fis@listas.unizar.es</font></a><a href="http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"><font>http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-</font></a><a href="http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"><font>bin/mailman/listinfo/fis</font></a></font><br>
<a href="mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es" target="_blank"><font></font></a><br>
<a href="http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"><font></font><font></font></a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><span><font color="#888888"><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div><font><font>-- </font></font><br><div><div dir="ltr"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;border-collapse:collapse"><font><font>Alex Hankey M.A. (Cantab.) PhD</font></font></span><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;border-collapse:collapse"><font><font> (M.I.T.)</font></font><br><font><font>Distinguished Professor of Yoga and Physical Science,</font></font><br><font><font>
SVYASA, Eknath Bhavan, 19 Gavipuram Circle</font></font><br><font><font>
Bangalore 560019, Karnataka, India </font></font><br><font><font>Mobile (Intn'l): </font></font><a href="tel:%2B44%207710%20534195" value="+447710534195" target="_blank"><font><font>+44 7710 534195</font></font></a> </span><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;border-collapse:collapse"></span><div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;border-collapse:collapse"><font><font>Mobile (India) +91 900 800 8789</font></font></span></div><div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;border-collapse:collapse"><div style="font-size:12.8px"><font><font>______________________________</font></font><font><font>______________________________</font></font></div><div style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-family:georgia,serif"><br></span></div><div style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-family:georgia,serif"><a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00796107/119/3" style="color:rgb(17,85,204)" target="_blank"><font><font>2015 JPBMB Special Issue on Integral Biomathics: Life Sciences, Mathematics and Phenomenological Philosophy</font></font></a></span></div></span></div></div></div>
</font></span></div></div>
<br><font>______________________________</font><font>_________________</font><br><font><font>
Fis mailing list</font><a href="mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es" target="_blank"><font>Fis@listas.unizar.es</font></a><a href="http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"><font>http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-</font></a><a href="http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"><font>bin/mailman/listinfo/fis</font></a></font><br>
<a href="mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es" target="_blank"><font></font></a><br>
<a href="http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"><font></font><font></font></a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div><font>-- </font><br><div><div dir="ltr"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;border-collapse:collapse">Alex Hankey M.A. (Cantab.) PhD</span><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;border-collapse:collapse"><font><font> (M.I.T.)</font></font><br><font><font>Distinguished Professor of Yoga and Physical Science,</font></font><br><font><font>
SVYASA, Eknath Bhavan, 19 Gavipuram Circle</font></font><br><font><font>
Bangalore 560019, Karnataka, India </font></font><br><font><font>Mobile (Intn'l): <a href="tel:%2B44%207710%20534195" value="+447710534195" target="_blank">+44 7710 534195</a> </font></font></span><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;border-collapse:collapse"></span><div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;border-collapse:collapse">Mobile (India) +91 900 800 8789</span></div><div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;border-collapse:collapse"><div style="font-size:12.8px"><font><font>____________________________________________________________</font></font></div><div style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-family:georgia,serif"><br></span></div><div style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-family:georgia,serif"><a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00796107/119/3" style="color:rgb(17,85,204)" target="_blank"><font><font>2015 JPBMB Special Issue on Integral Biomathics: Life Sciences, Mathematics and Phenomenological Philosophy</font></font></a></span></div></span></div></div></div>
</div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;border-collapse:collapse">Alex Hankey M.A. (Cantab.) PhD</span><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;border-collapse:collapse"> (M.I.T.)<br>Distinguished Professor of Yoga and Physical Science,<br>
SVYASA, Eknath Bhavan, 19 Gavipuram Circle<br>
Bangalore 560019, Karnataka, India <br>Mobile (Intn'l): +44 7710 534195 </span><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;border-collapse:collapse"></span><div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;border-collapse:collapse">Mobile (India) +91 900 800 8789</span></div><div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;border-collapse:collapse"><div style="font-size:12.8px">____________________________________________________________</div><div style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-family:georgia,serif"><br></span></div><div style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-family:georgia,serif"><a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00796107/119/3" style="color:rgb(17,85,204)" target="_blank">2015 JPBMB Special Issue on Integral Biomathics: Life Sciences, Mathematics and Phenomenological Philosophy</a></span></div></span></div></div></div>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>