Auto-SummaryThe post argues that the concept of "nature doing nature" being equated with emptiness is a misrepresentation. It criticizes the author for presenting this idea in human terms, which the author believes reduces emptiness to a human-centric philosophy. The author contends that the author's representation of emptiness as a reaction to once caring and now not caring is a form of complacency that advocates for surrendering to destructive actions, such as those of oil barons. The post asserts that this complacency is a reification of emptiness, as it attributes human values and structures to a concept that transcends such limitations. The author dismisses the notion of "inspiring" the idea, arguing that it is ultimately a flawed and meaningless path that undermines its own purpose. The core dispute is not about the idea of emptiness itself, but rather how it is represented and the implications of that representation, which the author sees as promoting nihilism and humanistic intent.
There are many ways to negate, and so there is no dispute to that in particular.
The dispute is to a misrepresentation of emptiness. Why is it a misrepresentation? Because you present this particular idea of negation as philosophy.
How is it a misrepresentation?
On conceptual level you present "nature doing nature" as emptiness. In other words, you represent the idea in terms of a specific ideal of emptiness (of human values and structure...etc), which you represent in terms of its meaningful context.
Its how you arrive at the idea from this context, that gives the ideal its meaning though, and not the face value of its mere namesake. This is the context you prescribe:
//you once had hope for humanity//, and \\now you do not.\\
The ideal you consequently represent is seen in these terms. Or you just said you are sharing your feelings, on a human level. This is no different than the problem as it would be if it were acknowledged as "philosophical". They are both basically representations.
The previous two part formula of human terminology is what gives //nature// doing \\nature\\ its functional meaning.
The problem is Nature doing nature is at face value a description of emptiness, but it is represented by means of human structure.
This is the reification of emptiness. Reification is a very important concept in terms of ideology, which is the representation of ideas. I presented a wiki on it in the last post. But in more basic terminology, this is a concise way of defining the present circumstance: The problem is not of the specific ideal of emptiness, (like what it is that is painted on a flag). It is your active disposition to representing it in human terms that is offensive to its own meaning.
You describe it in human terms, ascribing it philosophically, raising its flag, so that some people will follow you. Even if it is not philosophical, it is an expression, one which might make a great impression in the world.
But the way you arrive at emptiness indicates that the ideal is, and never was what its ideal was represented as. Instead it is a functional, dualistic aversion to humanity, just giving up. You describe that //you once cared// and \\now you do not\\. When you represent that this is how you arrive at emptiness, you present emptiness in a way that is offensive to its own meaning. You present it as meaningless, or the lack of thesis that is paradoxically presented as a thesis.
But you are consciously representing a position, even if it is your surrender. Now, if you want to just surrender, just surrender. But when you represent this, in whatever forum, you are making a human expression toward other humans - ie. a conceptual representation. You cannot really hide from this fact. Therefore you positively advocate complacency to the entity that enacts "nature doing nature", which by your functional criteria of emptiness, can amount to anything. This active complacency is arrived at from your former position, that is of once caring, and fighting. This is how you have presented the idea. It is represented as the point of surrendering to "nature doing nature".
Therefore the dualistic meaning of what you present, ends with you raising the oil barrons flag, as the positive avocation of ambivalence to the context you specify.
I will define this in the terms that I believe are possible to represent -
What does emptiness actually mean? ----> What does "nature doing nature" mean? In the context that you have presented "Nature doing Nature" means reifying emptiness or nature as a human structural concept. In the most particular context you have presented, "Nature doing Nature" means advocating the destructive actions of oil barons, by representing conscious surrender to them. It means that humans will do (and are doing) what they want, and you accept this, whatever it maybe, because this is "natural", in a wholly meaningless sense of the emptiness of meaning.
But again, you represent this, therefore ascribing it as meaningful.
Aside from this being an entirely impotent concept of nature itself, what I dispute is that you call it "inspiring". You do raise a flag, even if it's for surrender.
Therefore I do not dispute "Nature doing nature" in terms of its ideal meaning, or in terms of your pessimism. I dispute the way you present, or arrive at the "meaning" that defines this notion, such that others may follow the same path of reification. The path you present is a problem, just as emptiness is a pragmatic truth. I don't claim to understand emptiness, but I can at least understand when at times it is being misrepresented, through inner contradictions. This notion of "nature doing nature" undermines itself, and is wholly meaningless as a path to any sort of meaning.
Not only are you collapsing the original ideal of your caring, you have apparently even collapsed this newer ideal, when you don't personally stand by its meaning either. You have said again, you don't care that it isn't philosophical. Yet you represent it. This is what I mean by nihilism. You are representing something, but not even standing by its representation. It can go on upon as many levels as you may paradoxically uphold the flag of ambivalence in any representative form, which here is defined as a philosophical position.
This is because the nihilist always stands on the firm ground below the flag he raises, where it cannot be disputed that he can do whatever he wants. I cannot dispute this pessimism itself. The problem which you present is that this apparent freedom includes the nihilist paradoxically representing himself.
So the ideal is not what I ultimately dispute. I unfortunately agree with your ideal, for the corrupt agency it assumes. What I dispute is how the concept is arrived at by feigning, and then consequently assuming humanistic (albeit paradoxical) intent.
This is how I dispute is the misrepresentation of emptiness.
Edited by daytripper23 (05/08/10 03:19 PM)
|
Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order 
Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale
Freedom 
Icelander 
Mushmonkey
soulmotion
1 2 all )
JacquesCousteau
gettinjiggywithit
lucid
FatNug
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
[Re: 
Edit 
Reply 
