reification and negation

[ilumairen]

To me there is little difference between reification and negation of experience. I'm curious about other's thoughts.

[Marblehead]

When I first joined this board I had one hellova fight with my Buddhist friends regarding the reification of Tao.

 

To make real.  The Tao that can be told of is not the eternal Tao.  Tao cannot be defined therefore it cannot be reified.

 

I'm not sure where you are with the "negation of experience".  I'll give it a shot though.

 

We cannot negate an experience.  By the time the experience reaches our brain the experience is already in the past.  It is written in stone.

 

However, we can go into denial.  This would be a form of negating the experience.  But this is only in our brain; the experienced still happened.

[ilumairen]

When I first joined this board I had one hellova fight with my Buddhist friends regarding the reification of Tao.

 

To make real.  The Tao that can be told of is not the eternal Tao.  Tao cannot be defined therefore it cannot be reified.

 

 

I'm not sure where you are with the "negation of experience". 

 

At this point it was intentionally left open, so as not to give the impression of there being a certain response that I'm looking for.

 

I'll give it a shot though.

 

We cannot negate an experience.  By the time the experience reaches our brain the experience is already in the past.  It is written in stone.

 

However, we can go into denial.  This would be a form of negating the experience.  But this is only in our brain; the experienced still happened.

 

Thank you for the shot. :cheers:

[Karl]

It's the other side of the same fallacy. So, yes, there is no real difference. I always think of it from the perspective of musical notes in which the interlude is regarded as the defining element and therefore similarly equal to the note. Negating the note and then concretising the interlude achieves the same aim.

 

its the same sophism and scepticism presented in a marginally different way. It's only use is in a literary work, but then we shouldn't confuse the map with the territory.

[ilumairen]

To clarify, I was not thinking concepts like Dao, but rather every day experience.

[Marblehead]

... between reification and negation of experience.

Well, that phrase still has me thinking "make real" counter "deny reality".  Direct opposites.

[Karl]

Well, that phrase still has me thinking "make real" counter "deny reality".  Direct opposites.

 

Make the non existent existent; make the existent non existent.

 

0=1 ; 1=0

 

A is-A ; -A is A

 

Identicurgal

 

 

[RigdzinTrinley]

To clarify, I was not thinking concepts like Dao, but rather every day experience.

If that is the case then I agree with you 100%

 

If we talk about Buddhist view + meditation (eyes + legs) then I would have something to say

 

But only in that context

[RigdzinTrinley]

Make the non existent existent; make the existent non existent. 0=1 ; 1=0 A is-A ; -A is AIdenticurgal

0=(+1)+(-1)

[Apech]

To me there is little difference between reification and negation of experience. I'm curious about other's thoughts.

 

 

Any chance of expanding that a little because I'm not I understand.

[Karl]

0=(+1)+(-1)

 

That's 0=0 ; 1=1

 

Or in children's terms if you have a bag of sweeties then eat them all you have none remaining. (Brilliant give the child some of those sweeties as a reward).

 

That's totally different from reification that posits zero is a special kind of something. So, having no sweeties is but the negative attribute of the traditionally existent sweeties, therefore is as existent as the sweeties themselves, or as non existent as the traditionally existent sweeties.

 

I came across this idea sitting in the tv room of a B and B in Aberdeen around 1978. That 1=0, which is totally wrong, but still has tremendous world wide traction.

 

Anyway it boils down to Kant/Hegel "no one can know anything for certain" or "it may be true for you but not for me".

 

In other words it's subjectivity.

 

 

[RigdzinTrinley]

It means zero has the potential to manifest the polarities of existence without loosing its zeroness

 

The illusory play

 

Dancing insubstantial light

 

Its different then 0=0 yet its the same

 

Because even if 0=(+1)+(-1) is 0=0 yet the first operation shows you that within zero is the potential of all arisings good(+) and bad(-)

 

Yet those arisings are still 0

 

Ah la la ho!

[RigdzinTrinley]

It also means that if the negation is done correctly then all arisings are shown to be non arising that's why they are called arisings

 

And it shows that if the negation is done correctly that all reification never existed in the first place and has no basis whatsoever

 

If it is done incorrectly then the negation is just a reification and the silkworm mind continues to spin its own samsara infinitely

 

Going from good to bad and back again

 

---------------

 

I'm not saying what you said is wrong, just trying to explain myself

[3bob]

I imagine someone out there has some transcendental trig for us? 

[Karl]

It means zero has the potential to manifest the polarities of existence without loosing its zeroness

The illusory play

Dancing insubstantial light

Its different then 0=0 yet its the same

Because even if 0=(+1)+(-1) is 0=0 yet the first operation shows you that within zero is the potential of all arisings good(+) and bad(-)

Yet those arisings are still 0

Ah la la ho!

 

Yet it doesn't show anything of the sort. Zero is just a numerical convenience. You are creating a mathematical equivocation in which zero Is being equated to existence. Remember, the map is not the territory.

 

Out of non existence comes nothing. There isn't anything at all for anything to arise. Things are existent, they only change from states due to causality. A candle doesn't manifest out of nothing, it has to be manufactured in accordance with existent principles and materials. The subjectivist does not accept this, or excepts it only on a limited basis depending on how radically subjective they are.

 

It comes back to existence exists and the primacy of existence vs the primacy of consciousness.

 

 

[Brian]

 

I imagine someone out there has some transcendental trig for us?

Yeah, but I gave up posting such things as a New Year's resolution.

[Karl]

Yeah, but I gave up posting such things as a New Year's resolution.

 

If anyone could....;-)

[RigdzinTrinley]

Sure Karl

 

I was just playing around

[Apech]

Yet it doesn't show anything of the sort. Zero is just a numerical convenience. You are creating a mathematical equivocation in which zero Is being equated to existence. Remember, the map is not the territory. Out of non existence comes nothing. There isn't anything at all for anything to arise. Things are existent, they only change from states due to causality. A candle doesn't manifest out of nothing, it has to be manufactured in accordance with existent principles and materials. The subjectivist does not accept this, or excepts it only on a limited basis depending on how radically subjective they are. It comes back to existence exists and the primacy of existence vs the primacy of consciousness.

 

 

Not according to some Daoist schools - 'you' comes from 'wu'.  (e.g. Xuanxue school).

 

And zero is the difference between say, 1 and 10 - which is 9 of course.

 

Or if you prefer a quantum field where energy comes from nothing.

[RigdzinTrinley]

Also I'm well aware that a non existent thing can never become an existent thing because it lacks the power to do so

 

Also an existent thing doesn't need to arise because it already did

 

So no need to talk about the arising of things

 

Don't you think?

[3bob]

I don't know about that RT since there is the "four fold negation" which I don't think is negation per se, but the starting point for a deeper wisdom which it can not reach. (and recognizes such as its quandary)

Edited January 24, 2016 by 3bob

[Apech]

I don't know about that RT since there is the "four fold negation" which I don't think is negation per se, but the starting point for a deeper wisdom which it can not reach. (and recognizes such as its quandary)

 

That's the whole point, I think.

[Marblehead]

That's 0=0 ; 1=1 Or in children's terms if you have a bag of sweeties then eat them all you have none remaining. (Brilliant give the child some of those sweeties as a reward). That's totally different from reification that posits zero is a special kind of something. So, having no sweeties is but the negative attribute of the traditionally existent sweeties, therefore is as existent as the sweeties themselves, or as non existent as the traditionally existent sweeties.

But if the child never had any candies and you tell them that they will not be getting any zero will never equal one.

 

You can't get something from nothing, no matter how hard you try.  Just as useless an effort as trying to get blood from a beet.

[Marblehead]

Or if you prefer a quantum field where energy comes from nothing.

You can't get something from nothing.

[Marblehead]

Potential is not equal to zero.  It exists.  It's just that it has not yet manifested and therefore cannot yet be defined.