Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Scarface" data-source="post: 3744938" data-attributes="member: 150267">these are some of responses which i get after putting some ideas of constructive relativism of Dr. nalin<a href="http://www.facebook.com/s.php?k=100000080&id=1050750616" target="_blank"><img src="http://profile.ak.facebook.com/v227/738/16/t1050750616_6324.jpg" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /></a>Post #21 reply <a href="http://www.facebook.com/s.php?k=100000080&id=1050750616" target="_blank">Patrick Ioakimedes</a> (Claremont School of Theology) wrote on October 23, 2008 at 3:45pmThis is something that I believe for the most part. It seems to me that it offers a philosophical ground for dialogue with Quantum Physics. It also seems to have some similarities with Berkeley's understanding of mind and reality (is that correct?). While I know that you said you cannot translate anicca or anatma, I am guessing you have to try. I have heard different interpretations of anatma that go against using the words "observer" or "creator" as functions of anatma and so I am interested in how you work them into this system. <ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><a href="http://www.facebook.com/edittopic.php?xid=phil_discourse&app_id=7716435055&c_url=http%253A%252F%252Fapps.facebook.com%252Fphilosophers%252Fdiscourse.php%253Fref%253Dcallback%2526author%253D600414581&r_url=http%253A%252F%252Fapps.facebook.com%252Fphilosophers%252Fdiscourse.php%253Fref%253Dboard&sig=c69b2ef03724821315885d60b5b3087d&topic=519&action=4&reply_to=8504" target="_blank">Reply to Patrick</a><a href="http://www.facebook.com/board.php?xid=phil_discourse&app_id=7716435055&c_url=http%253A%252F%252Fapps.facebook.com%252Fphilosophers%252Fdiscourse.php%253Fref%253Dcallback%2526author%253D600414581&r_url=http%253A%252F%252Fapps.facebook.com%252Fphilosophers%252Fdiscourse.php%253Fref%253Dboard&sig=c69b2ef03724821315885d60b5b3087d&f=2&start=30&hash=f3d8fe0173f0411459c0d8976b50fe5b#" target="_blank">Report</a></li> </ul><a href="http://www.facebook.com/s.php?k=100000080&id=1276599109" target="_blank"><img src="http://profile.ak.facebook.com/v230/246/86/t1276599109_7742.jpg" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /></a>Post #31 reply <a href="http://www.facebook.com/s.php?k=100000080&id=1276599109" target="_blank">Jeff Klooger</a> replied to <a href="http://www.facebook.com/board.php?xid=phil_discourse&app_id=7716435055&c_url=http%253A%252F%252Fapps.facebook.com%252Fphilosophers%252Fdiscourse.php%253Fref%253Dcallback%2526author%253D600414581&r_url=http%253A%252F%252Fapps.facebook.com%252Fphilosophers%252Fdiscourse.php%253Fref%253Dboard&sig=c69b2ef03724821315885d60b5b3087d&f=2&start=30&hash=f3d8fe0173f0411459c0d8976b50fe5b#post8501" target="_blank">Steve's post</a>on October 24, 2008 at 4:06amI can grasp part of what you are asserting, and what I can grasp hardly seems original or different from any number of idealist approaches. First,though, can you tell me who "We" is? You use "we" in your post, but don't identify this collective entity.Also this: "The "world" is anicca, dukka, anatma and sunya. However anicca and anatta are not concepts, and as such it is futile to attempt to translate them into English or any other language. Even in Pali they should be considered as non concepts that defy explanation using concepts or other words."So you are telling us that there is something very important that is not a concept and that you cannot explain or even name. What is the point then? How can anyone decide whether they agree or disgree with your thesis if you do not tell them what it is. I suggest you develop some communicable concepts and then thave another go at communicating your ideas.</blockquote>

Verification: Dahaya deken beduwama keeyada?

Top Bottom