As tempting as it might be to employ Socratic irony, and drive you with a stick down your own path, since we are already familiar with the arguments, it would be pointless, as you say; especially as you admit the Chinese position is always a loser there. Surely it would also bore the blog.
But in the spirit of OB, at least you admit your biases by name-checking Shankara and adopting the “negativity” position. That you believe in “substances” and “essences” is a bold admission here—I am surprised enough to find a monist on OB, but an alchemist too! I feel drawn back to the days of the Golden Dawn, in the most charming manner. I applaud you, in the nicest possible way.
@Caledonian
The core of my discussion with the delightful Mitchell will, no matter how he wishes to phrase it, in the end reduce to his embrace of monism. He has declared himself in favor of self-existent Being, or perhaps considering his profession of the Vedanta, Sat-Cit-Ananda, whereas I—like modern science—prefer to start without a catechism. This is what makes Buddhism an interesting philosophical position to so many scientists.
But because one arguing from the Buddhist position will deny monism—that is, to massively simplify, be an atheist—Mitchell names that “negativity.” Since Mitchell believes in self-existent, non-dependent Being, he has to call that “subjectivity,” because Consciousness implies a Subject.
Indian philosophy is so poorly understood in the West, as it’s usually associated with mere New Age handwaving, that it is hard sometimes to have people accept that in fact “even” the Vedanta is a beautifully argued, elegant, supremely logical and highly rational thought structure.
However a Buddhist would simply note the difference and move on—because Buddhism isn’t hung up on theory and thought structures, and also because both Mitchell and the Buddhist will in the end admit each has a recognized darshan. Thus I embrace Mitchell!
@Mitchell porter
As tempting as it might be to employ Socratic irony, and drive you with a stick down your own path, since we are already familiar with the arguments, it would be pointless, as you say; especially as you admit the Chinese position is always a loser there. Surely it would also bore the blog.
But in the spirit of OB, at least you admit your biases by name-checking Shankara and adopting the “negativity” position. That you believe in “substances” and “essences” is a bold admission here—I am surprised enough to find a monist on OB, but an alchemist too! I feel drawn back to the days of the Golden Dawn, in the most charming manner. I applaud you, in the nicest possible way.
@Caledonian
The core of my discussion with the delightful Mitchell will, no matter how he wishes to phrase it, in the end reduce to his embrace of monism. He has declared himself in favor of self-existent Being, or perhaps considering his profession of the Vedanta, Sat-Cit-Ananda, whereas I—like modern science—prefer to start without a catechism. This is what makes Buddhism an interesting philosophical position to so many scientists.
But because one arguing from the Buddhist position will deny monism—that is, to massively simplify, be an atheist—Mitchell names that “negativity.” Since Mitchell believes in self-existent, non-dependent Being, he has to call that “subjectivity,” because Consciousness implies a Subject.
Indian philosophy is so poorly understood in the West, as it’s usually associated with mere New Age handwaving, that it is hard sometimes to have people accept that in fact “even” the Vedanta is a beautifully argued, elegant, supremely logical and highly rational thought structure.
However a Buddhist would simply note the difference and move on—because Buddhism isn’t hung up on theory and thought structures, and also because both Mitchell and the Buddhist will in the end admit each has a recognized darshan. Thus I embrace Mitchell!