Graham Priest & Nagarjuna

I stumbled upon Graham Priest and his "inclosure schema", but what exactly does the inclosure schema have to do emptiness?

I can see that there is a delta function that either takes you out of "existence space" into "transcendence space" or from "transcendence space" into "transcendence space." But what exactly does that mean and how does that map onto Nagarjuna? What are the spaces, and what is the delta function? Why call it existence and transcendence (the latter seems too biased)? Also, phi and psi could be helpful to know here too.
>http://www.autodidactproject.org/other/priest-limits-2.html
The way I currently understand it, is that there is a fake "closed" space (existence), which leads to a truer but paradoxical "closed" space (transcendence) which can never be surpassed. I hope that doesn't sound too moronic. I do not know how to link this with metaphysics, only logic, and the finer details like phi, psi, delta, etc., escape me.

CRIME Shirt $21.68

UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68

CRIME Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    He does not know anything about buddhism.
    Read this instead. Solid ground on buddhism, and solid ground on ANALYTIC philosophy too.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      What makes you doubt his knowledge of Buddhist philosophy? What does he get wrong?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The fact that Gotama, Nagarjuna, Dignaga, and even Linji Yixuan never claimed Dialetheism

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          There's a difference between dialetheism and paraconsistent forms of logic.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I didn't know that actually
            What kind of form of paraconsistent logic is not a dialethieism?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            ChatGPT was pretty good at summarizing it. The main to focus on is how paraconsistent logic attempts to avoid 'logical explosion':

            Dialetheism and paraconsistent logic are related but distinct concepts in philosophy and logic. Here’s how they differ:

            ### Dialetheism
            - **Definition**: Dialetheism is the view that there are true contradictions, i.e., statements that are both true and false simultaneously.
            - **Core Idea**: According to dialetheists, some contradictions actually reflect the nature of reality and can be true.
            - **Philosophical Motivation**: Dialetheism is often motivated by attempts to resolve paradoxes, such as the Liar Paradox, where a statement refers to itself in a way that creates a contradiction (e.g., "This statement is false").
            - **Example**: In the Liar Paradox, the sentence "This statement is false" is both true and false if taken at face value. Dialetheists would accept this as a genuine, true contradiction.

            ### Paraconsistent Logic
            - **Definition**: Paraconsistent logic is a type of logical system designed to handle contradictions in a controlled manner. It allows for the coexistence of contradictory statements without leading to logical explosion (i.e., the situation where anything can be proven true if a contradiction is accepted).
            - **Core Idea**: Paraconsistent logics modify classical logic to avoid the principle of explosion, which states that from a contradiction, any statement can be inferred. By doing so, they can reason in the presence of inconsistencies without trivializing the logical system.
            - **Philosophical Motivation**: Paraconsistent logics are motivated by the need to reason effectively in contexts where contradictions might arise, such as inconsistent databases, legal reasoning, or certain scientific theories.
            - **Example**: In a paraconsistent logical system, encountering a contradiction (e.g., "P and not P") does not allow one to infer arbitrary conclusions like "Q and not Q." Instead, the logic is designed to isolate and manage contradictions.

            ### Relationship and Distinctions
            - **Overlap**: Dialetheism often employs paraconsistent logics to formalize its claims. If one believes that true contradictions exist, using a paraconsistent logic allows for a coherent framework to reason about these contradictions without descending into triviality.
            - **Difference in Scope**: Dialetheism is a metaphysical or ontological position about the nature of truth and reality, asserting that some contradictions are true. Paraconsistent logic, on the other hand, is a formal system or tool that can be used independently of dialetheism to handle contradictions in a logical and consistent manner.

            In summary, while dialetheism and paraconsistent logic are connected, dialetheism is a philosophical stance about the existence of true contradictions, whereas paraconsistent logic is a formal approach to reasoning in the presence of contradictions.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            This is off topic, but I wanted to ask: what is the best English translation for a Zen quote? I've heard that Blue Cliff Record only has Thomas Cleary as of yet.
            Is the translation situation for 從容錄 satisfactory?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Red Pine's translations of Zen/Ch'an sutras and poets tend to be very good. I especially recommend The Mountain Poems of Stonehouse. Stonehouse was a Zen/Ch'an Buddhist. I like the The Collected Songs of Cold Mountain too, but Han Shan was a mix of a Daoist and Ch'an Buddhist, I think.
            Nobuyuki Yuasa's translation of Ryokan is also great. I do not like the other translations of Ryokan. Ryokan was a Soto Zen Buddhist.
            The Cleary brothers' translation of the Blue Cliff Record is generally agreed to be good.

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Forgor the pic

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's just arguing the conventional and absolute have an indeterminate border and topsy turvy ontological relationship that the discursive mind cannot grasp.

    Read this essay:
    https://www.thezensite.com/ZenEssays/Nagarjuna/NagarjunaTheLimitsOfThought.pdf

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      What do you mean by the conventional and the absolute? Like, the sensible and the intelligible? The material and the ideal? What is socially constructed versus mathematical reality? So many things come to mind, especially when you choose conventional (which is usually paired against nature when I see it) vs. absolute.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Samsara (conditioned existence) and Nirvana (unconditioned, unborn). Nagarjuna says they are absolutely identical.
        Read about the Japanese "not one, not two", I find it a more elegant summary:

        "As such, Zen maintains a stance of “not one” and “not two,” that is “a positionless position,” where “not two” means negating the dualistic stance that divides the whole into two parts, while “not one” means negating the nondualistic stance occurring when the Zen practitioner dwells in the whole as one, while suspending judgment in meditation. The free, bilateral movement between “not one” and “not two” characterizes Zen’s achievement of a personhood with a third perspective that cannot be confined to either dualism or non-dualism, neither “not one” nor “not two”.'

        There aren't two truths, there's actually only the absolute truth

        From Blue Cliff Record, Case 2.

        "In one there are many kinds;
        In two there's no duality."

        Asterisks indicate comments:

        "In one there are many kinds;
        **You should open it up; what end will there be in just
        one kind?*

        In two there's no duality.
        **How could it sustain four, five, six, seven? Why create complications?*"

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >are absolutely identical.
          are the same*
          It's been awhile since I read the MMK.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Blue Cliff Record Case 2

          趙州示眾云 至道無難唯嫌揀擇纔有語言是揀擇是明白老僧不在明白裏是汝還護惜也無

          時有僧問既不在明白裏護惜箇什麼州云我亦不知

          僧云和尚既不知為什麼卻道不在明白裏州云問事即得禮拜了退

          What the hell are you talking about??

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Blue Cliff Record, Case 2, *Verse*, Thomas Cleary Translation;

            https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://terebess.hu/zen/Blue-Cliff.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjvzfqaz4KHAxVFD1kFHZvuC_8QFnoECB0QAQ&usg=AOvVaw1XJ-RonM_Wip6FqOWdEdz4

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Well, how did Thomas Cleary explain the next verse, 天際日上月下檻前山深水寒髑髏識盡喜何立?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The verse isn't from Thomas Clearly but Yuanwu's commentary and verses that accompany each case.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I get what you're saying.
          >Samsara (conditioned existence) and Nirvana (unconditioned, unborn).
          Aquinas makes this distinction.
          >Nagarjuna says they are absolutely identical.
          I'm not currently in a position to analyze the truth of this or what this would imply. But I can at least see where to begin.

          But I'm confused about where the conventional and the absolute come into play here. I asked for definitions and you forgot to give me any.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Phenomenologically, Zen (Ch'an in Chinese) posits that the conventional realm is constructed through labels and categorizations arising from thought. This realm includes the distinctions and dualities that our minds create to navigate and understand the world. In contrast, the absolute realm, which exists prior to thought, is often described using terms such as "suchness" or "the unborn nature." These terms point to a direct, unmediated experience of reality, free from conceptualization.

            "the sky tips like a jar flooding the inner vision" - rujing

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Well, I don't really believe that Phenomenology can explain Zen quotes. Evan Thompson's position on Theravada is certainly good. The problem is that Zen is not only a Buddhist practice, but also has Daoist aspects. It's unfortunate that 陳鼓應's work hasn't been given more attention in the Western philosophical community.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You're asking to me describe the absolute nature of reality. It's not easy to say what the Absolute 'is', but it can be described metaphorically or poetically to some extent. I'm not enlightened yet. Even the Pali canon discouraged metaphysical speculation and, instead, promoted speaking sincerely from experience. All teachings are merely skillful means to reach the One Vehicle that leads to Enlightenment. I actually consider that a shared feature between both Theravada and Mahayana.

            Here is a relevant quote from Andrei Tarkovsky:

            “We can express our feelings regarding the world around us either by poetic or by descriptive means. I prefer to express myself metaphorically. Let me stress: metaphorically, not symbolically. A symbol contains within itself a definite meaning, certain intellectual formula, while metaphor is an image. An image possessing the same distinguishing features as the world it represents. An image — as opposed to a symbol — is indefinite in meaning. One cannot speak of the infinite world by applying tools that are definite and finite. We can analyse the formula that constitutes a symbol, while metaphor is a being-within-itself, it's a monomial. It falls apart at any attempt of touching it.”

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Well thank you 🙂

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Okay, thank you, that makes a lot more sense. Is it also true to think that the conventional realm is based off of bits and pieces of the absolute? Stated another way, conceptualization is impossible without the absolute serving as the substrate?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            All conditioned phenomena, samsara, have an unconditioned nature, dharmata, nirvana. These two are inseparable like fire and its heat, speaking of them as separate is merely conventional and does not withstand analysis.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >The free, bilateral movement between “not one” and “not two” characterizes Zen’s achievement of a personhood with a third perspective that cannot be confined to either dualism or non-dualism, neither “not one” nor “not two”.'
          moron here. Isn't this kinda similar to Peirce's tripartite semiotics in which an observer is required to differentiate between a Thing and Not That Thing?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >The free, bilateral movement between “not one” and “not two” characterizes Zen’s achievement of a personhood with a third perspective that cannot be confined to either dualism or non-dualism, neither “not one” nor “not two”.'
          moron here. Isn't this kinda similar to Peirce's tripartite semiotics in which an observer is required to differentiate between a Thing and Not That Thing?

          Second moron here,
          >"As such, Zen maintains a stance of “not one” and “not two,” that is “a positionless position,” where “not two” means negating the dualistic stance that divides the whole into two parts, while “not one” means negating the nondualistic stance occurring when the Zen practitioner dwells in the whole as one, while suspending judgment in meditation. The free, bilateral movement between “not one” and “not two” characterizes Zen’s achievement of a personhood with a third perspective that cannot be confined to either dualism or non-dualism, neither “not one” nor “not two”.'
          Couldn't a third thing be a non-monism and non-dualism? The third POV here doesn't seem to be positionless. It just seems to be an alternate position that can mediate between not one and not two by satisfying both conditions.

          All conditioned phenomena, samsara, have an unconditioned nature, dharmata, nirvana. These two are inseparable like fire and its heat, speaking of them as separate is merely conventional and does not withstand analysis.

          There's a difference between saying that they're causally connected (and not separable) and saying that they're identical. That's the problem I have with Nagarjuna's framing.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Couldn't a third thing be a non-monism and non-dualism?
            as pointed out:

            >means negating the nondualistic stance occurring when the Zen practitioner dwells in the whole as one, while suspending judgment in meditation
            This is not a nondualistic stance by the way as per shankara, nonduality is neither about seperation nor "union" and more related to what the buddhist calls asparsa yoga. So it is neither monism nor dualism, this is just a basic middle way thing, neither dual (as in nihilism) nor one (as in monism or "eternalism") nondualism is purely negative, it should not be reduced to monism, so this "neither nondualism nor dualism" is not actually true to what is known as "nondualism"

            "One without a second" is completely beyond a one or two, because the One is in relationship with the two.

            >asparsa yoga
            https://www.wisdomlib.org/buddhism/essay/mahayana-buddhism-and-early-advaita-vedanta-study/d/doc627412.html

            >nondualism is purely negative
            but in that sense it is absolutely positive, if anything thats all the paradox is

            It is a western philosophical view to reduce "nondualism" to monism, I would unironically recommend Guenon who covers why this is the case, and it is also a misrepresentation of Advaita (not-dual literally in the sanskrit) Advaita doesnt imply a monism any more than it does dualism, nor this idea exclusively of only "suspending judgment"

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            about suspending the judgment also:

            Here is the Zhuangzi “Tianxia” account of Shen Dao’s group:

            For the general public, not cliques; changing and without selfishness; decisive but without any control; responsive to things without dividing in two. Not absorbed with reflection. Not calculating in knowing how. Not choosing among natural kinds and flowing along with them.

            They took bonding all the natural kinds together as the key. They said, “tiannature:sky constancies can cover but cannot sustain; Earthly cycles can sustain but cannot cover it. Great daoguide can embrace it but cannot distinguish it.” We know the myriad natural kinds all have both that which is acceptable and that which is unacceptable. So they said, “If you select then you cannot be comprehensive, if you teach you cannot convey all of it. Daoguide does not leave anything out.”

            Hence Shen Dao “abandoned knowledge and discarded ‘self’.” He flowed with the inevitable and was indifferent to natural kinds … . He lived together with shi and fei, mixed acceptable and avoidable. He didn’t treat knowing and deliberation as guides, didn’t know front from back. He was indifferent to everything.

            If he was pushed he went, if pulled he followed—like a leaf whirling in the stream, like a feather in a wind, like dust on a millstone. He was complete and distinguished (fei) nothing … . So he said, “reach for being like things without knowledge of what to do. Don’t use worthies and sages. Even a clod of earth cannot miss Dao.”

            The worthy officials all laughed at him and said, “Shen Dao’s dao does not lead to the conduct of a living man but the tendency of a dead man. It is really very strange… .” (Zhuangzi Ch. 33)

            It is not true that zen or daoism does not involve the "non-discursive supra-rational intellectual faculty"

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous
          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It's literally just a terminological thing, but if we look at what nondual implies it doesn't mean One (monism) so to imply that it does is misrepresenting it.
            It also leads to an infinite regress, all of a sudden you have anons asking now "so is there a third position?" That can lead on to a fourth, fifth, ad. Infinitum.

            This neither "nondualism nor dualism" shtick ends up to be nothing more than semantics. And it's false to imply somehow "suspending judgement" contradicts it, afterall the zen monk who does athinking thinking, or who does non-doing, clearly that's where something can be intuited, but not in this infinite regress hipster philosophy jargon.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Just to add I have seen Buddhists who act as if their "system" is somehow unique and not relatable to shankaras advaita, they do so in the same way, basically what it comes down to is this semantics. Or they reduce Nondual Brahman to some caricature like Brahma, or what is Ishvara in the vedantic tradition. It is extremely intellectually dishonest to act as if these small reductionistic logical trivialities as pointed out by that anon above

            Samsara (conditioned existence) and Nirvana (unconditioned, unborn). Nagarjuna says they are absolutely identical.
            Read about the Japanese "not one, not two", I find it a more elegant summary:

            "As such, Zen maintains a stance of “not one” and “not two,” that is “a positionless position,” where “not two” means negating the dualistic stance that divides the whole into two parts, while “not one” means negating the nondualistic stance occurring when the Zen practitioner dwells in the whole as one, while suspending judgment in meditation. The free, bilateral movement between “not one” and “not two” characterizes Zen’s achievement of a personhood with a third perspective that cannot be confined to either dualism or non-dualism, neither “not one” nor “not two”.'

            [...]
            From Blue Cliff Record, Case 2.

            "In one there are many kinds;
            In two there's no duality."

            Asterisks indicate comments:

            "In one there are many kinds;
            **You should open it up; what end will there be in just
            one kind?*

            In two there's no duality.
            **How could it sustain four, five, six, seven? Why create complications?*"

            Where they reify "nondualism" only to serve their argument, and act like what distinguishes them from the "brahmins" is this linguistic relativism is just intellectually dishonest.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >means negating the nondualistic stance occurring when the Zen practitioner dwells in the whole as one, while suspending judgment in meditation
          This is not a nondualistic stance by the way as per shankara, nonduality is neither about seperation nor "union" and more related to what the buddhist calls asparsa yoga. So it is neither monism nor dualism, this is just a basic middle way thing, neither dual (as in nihilism) nor one (as in monism or "eternalism") nondualism is purely negative, it should not be reduced to monism, so this "neither nondualism nor dualism" is not actually true to what is known as "nondualism"

          "One without a second" is completely beyond a one or two, because the One is in relationship with the two.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >asparsa yoga
            https://www.wisdomlib.org/buddhism/essay/mahayana-buddhism-and-early-advaita-vedanta-study/d/doc627412.html

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >nondualism is purely negative
            but in that sense it is absolutely positive, if anything thats all the paradox is

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      There aren't two truths, there's actually only the absolute truth

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    blump

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    From Diamond Sutra, Verse 5:

    This having been said, the Buddha told the venerable Subhuti, “Since the possession of attributes is an illusion, Subhuti, and no possession of attributes is no illusion, by means of attributes that are no attributes the Tathagata can, indeed, be seen.”

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    bump. can anybody explain the weird terminology like the deltas n shieeet?

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I’ll take a crack at answering since I am quite fond of (what I understand to be) Priest’s ideas.

    The correlation between the Inclosure scheme and emptiness is simply that, in Priest’s analysis of Nagarjuna’s conception of emptiness, he claims that a statement such as “conceptual thought can’t obtain absolute truth” is an example of an Inclosure. This is because the statement is establishes a limit: “conceptual thinking can’t obtain absolute truth”, but then ostensibly attempts to declare an absolute truth. Now the idea of the inability of concepts to obtain absolute truth is rooted in the concept of emptiness/dependent origination.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Here’s a picture from Priest and Garfield’s “Nagarjuna and the Limits of Thought” where he labels symbols according to Nagarjuna’s claims specifically:

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Here’s a picture from Priest and Garfield’s “Nagarjuna and the Limits of Thought” where he labels symbols according to Nagarjuna’s claims specifically:

      bro forgot the picture lmao

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It sounds a little bit like Plato's One and the Indefinite Dyad

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Now the idea of the inability of concepts to obtain absolute truth is rooted in the concept of emptiness/dependent origination.

      at some point it would be nice if intellectuals were honest: the truth is that the fantasy of the intellectuals that rationality leads to truth and that somehow there 's a method to separate mind-poop ie schizophrenia from wisdom is preposterous.

      Intellectuals can't even acknowledge that their stance is not natural.
      Intellectuals are so narcissistic, that they think their position is the absolute norm across space and time and that somehow it's the biggest insight into reality that their brain poops are just... brain poops....WOAH I AM LE ENLIGHTENED WOAH LOOOKKKK AT ME I 'M BUDDDDHAAAA RRRRRRRICKKKKKKKKK
      And then the intellectuals think they can pass as super duper crazy gurus over their shirty insights which remains infantile in front of any non-rationalists wisdom.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >filtered by what pure intellect even corresponds to
        Hey if it helps you to burn away the dross on your own intellect by introspecting a bit then have at it
        > separate mind-poop ie schizophrenia from wisdom is preposterous.
        If you're really not joking I think you must be, being a bit ironic at least, then I would warn you, not only is there something above the rational, the supra-rational which corresponds to the supra-human, there is something sub-rational (yeah the mind-poop) which corresponds to the infra-human. Let's just say you do not actually want to get schizophrenia, you actually do not want to end up with multiple personality disorder, etc. Maybe a bit of DPD as they call it (dissociation or depersonalization) can be a bit healthy, us bookish types when we smoke a bit of the ganja might be a bit more predisposed, but ultimately that can be moved past and maybe for the better

        But no let's just say you can neutralize all the mindpoop without being repressive or committing the error of rationalism, and that is precisely the beginning of what all this metaphysics stuff.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Intellectuals are so narcissistic, that they think their position is the absolute norm across space and time
        The person of high intellect is not limited by time, space or ideas of norms. You've got it wrong the faculty of the intellect is what is used (yes not through just words and mental garbage) to distinguish between what you are and what you are not, all those things time, space, mind poop are not what we are, what we are is what the faculty of the intellect apprehends non-discursively

  8. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    His books are ridiculously expensive

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *